[sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee f

To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>, sig-nir at apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfee forNIRs"
From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:39:22 +0900
Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <437182A0.4010707 at nic dot ad dot jp>
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <OF469763A4.A67F4F79-ONC8257094.0023BEAB@LocalDomain> <01fb01c5d2be$39e07e00$100977cb@NGUYENTHUTHUY> <009b01c5d2fd$42d68100$340977cb@vnnic038fcd2e0> <4354779F.7020905@nic.ad.jp> <437182A0.4010707@nic.ad.jp>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)



Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs",
I would like to conclude that although strong support was expressed from
a few members of the community, there is no clear general consensus for
the proposal.

Thank you all for participating in the discussions.

Observations:
-------------
There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on this proposal.

4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR APNIC members)

Major comments:
----------------
 + It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish the fee just
   for NIRs
 + NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee
   structure is not fair for the NIRs
 + Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with immediately
   rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
 + It does not make sense as business practice to abolish the existing
   fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be
   supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or
   substitute the financial loss

Conclusion:
-----------
There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.

Reasons:
--------
+ Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was raised on the
  mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the
  meeting

+ Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the proposers,
  or those who benefit from the proposal.

+ Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not
  benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed conditionally,
  but this condition was not met.

+ Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by those who were
  opposed to the proposal.
 (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but should be
  able to explain why their proposal is better than the suggestions, or
  suggestions would not solve the issue they face)

Side Note:
----------
The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the proposal needs to
be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.


Best Regards,

Izumi Okutani and David Chen