Re: Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion
I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" .As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each
proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not.But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether
the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first.
Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus,does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is
not worthy to continue discussion.In other words,if there is big divarication among APNIC member,should we stop it here only by saying "we can not reach consensus" or should we reflect the situation to EC members and get some positive opinion from them.I do not think sarcasm can resolve the problem.In fact,KRNIC reflects a important problem to APNIC communities,if we want to work out it ,we should think how to deal with the question above.
Tao Chen
CNNIC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Smith" <pfs at cisco dot com>
To: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
Cc: <sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net>; <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:15 AM
Subject: (瑞星提示-此邮件可能是垃圾邮件)Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
> Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 16:31:
>>
>> My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
>
> And what mistake may that be? That KRNIC/NIDA can't get its own way all
> the time?
>
> While KRNIC/NIDA may dictate to its membership what does and doesn't
> happen in Korea, this is not what happens in the rest of the Internet.
>
> Did you consult with your membership in an open forum about all the
> APNIC policy proposals which were proposed in Hanoi? Not that I can find
> any evidence of, that's for sure.
>
> I don't recall anyone from KRNIC standing up at the APNIC meeting and
> saying "we discussed this with our membership, and X% thought it was a
> great idea, and Y% thought is was bad". I recall one NIR that gave this
> sort of input, and they are to be congratulated for encouraging open
> dialogue within the community.
>
> So KRNIC/NIDA clearly makes decisions on what is good and bad for its
> membership. Same way as you clearly now want to make decisions on what
> is good and bad for the APNIC membership.
>
>> And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
>
> Ah yes, the new policy which says that everything that KRNIC wants is
> automatically approved regardless of people's opinions? Mmmm, I can see
> that one being very popular (not!).
>
> philip
> --
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy