Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] Re: [sig-policy] The fees and slowness of policy.
--- Save Vocea <save at apnic dot net> wrote:
> Dear Jas
>
> Thanks for your well-considered and valuable
> contributions. I note
> that your mail has already sparked some really
> useful dialogue, but I
I'm not sure if your are just being nice, or APNIC
does value the discussion.. often hard to tell.
>
> * Voting vs. consensus building
>
> Voting
> ---------
> The APNIC ByLaws define certain situations where
> formal voting can
> occur, the most important being the Executive
> Council elections. It
> has also been the convention to put major decisions
> affecting
> membership rights (such as significant changes to
> the fee structure
> or adoption of a new membership agreement) to a
> formal vote, although
> this has generally followed a process of consensus
> building before
I appreciated that.
> the election. When there is a formal vote, then the
> number of ballots
> for each member is determined by their membership
> tier.
>
and each tier is repesentative of amount of resource,
which represents a members capacity to own/pay for
such a network and thus votes are really just bought.
- o.k. simple view. but it means that poor
organisations in poor countries will never have the
same voice as the extra large members.
> they are a member or not. In this process, the voice
> of an individual
> is equal to that of an Extra Large member.
So you expect the consensus process to be the filter
of bad ideas, and as it seems, the reason for delay of
good ideas. (o.k. my view - probably not shared)
But mostly it can act, as for the fees issue, as an
easy way to block change - that is a shame.
>
> * Other issues
>
> Rejection of policy proposal
> -----------------------------
>
> I just wanted to clarify that the proposal you
> mentioned is not
> specifically about improving DNS service as such,
> but rather about
> removing one method of updating the whois database
> for operational
> and security reasons. The improvement in reverse DNS
> update times was
> given as just one example of the potential benefits.
So multiple benefits and it was still delayed..
amazing.
> alive and all further inputs to the sig-policy
> mailing list or
> working group (when it is established) will be very
> welcome.
will look forward to that..
> APNIC's hosting arrangement with ARIN
> --------------------------------------
>
> Again, just for the sake of clarity, APNIC does have
> a small amount
> of space in one of ARIN's rack under a co-operative
> agreement with
awesome.. a sensible move! and I appreciate the
clarification.
So, Are the NIRs doing this too? have they made
arrangements with APNIC or the other NIRs? if not, why
not?
>
> Finally, thank you for your compliments about the
> quality of the web
> cast. We having working hard to improve access to
> the APNIC meetings
> and so it is really good to see those services
> prompting more
> discussion.
>
-Jas
--
Jas Webb
____________________________________________________
On Yahoo!7
Answers: 25 million answers and counting. Learn something new today
http://www.yahoo7.com.au/answers