Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressf
> Chanki Park said the following on 23/11/05 17:43:
i do not receive chanki's messages, i am on the sig-policy
list, and i have checked my last week of spam archive. this is
a problem.
<rant>
i strongly agree with chanki. there is a real and serious
process problem.
the nirs held an nir meeting and voted themselves to not pay a
previously agreed fee. [ apnic, could we please schedule an
lir meeting for perth so the lirs can vote ourselved out of
fees? ]
the matter went before the general policy membership and had
serious objection from non-nir folk, and support or silence
from the nir folk who voted themselves the savings [0].
chanki now wants to push the policy change through anyway,
despite objections in the meeting and on the mailing list.
yep, this is a real process problem. no kidding.
</rant>
i think it would be most constructive to follow the lead of
folk such as izumi-san in trying to create a substitute fiscal
plan with which to replace the existing fee, as has been
discussed here a number of times.
randy
---
[0] - my apologies to izumi-san and maybe one or two other nir
folk who actually are trying to follow apnic policy
process.