Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
- To: sig-nir at apnic dot net, sig-policy at apnic dot net
- Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"
- From: Save Vocea <save at apnic dot net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 16:15:59 +1000
- In-reply-to: <20050927044430.23081.qmail at web52609.mail dot yahoo dot com>
- List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear all,Thank you for the many comments that have been received on the proposal to abolish the IPv6 per address fee for NIRs. This mail is simply intended to clarify some issues of the policy development process and how they may affect the progress of this discussion.
By the terms of the APNIC Policy Development Process, each policy proposal must pass five steps. The proposal currently under discussion [prop-028-v001] has now passed the first two steps:
1. Discussion before the Open Policy Meeting (OPM), and 2. Consensus at the OPM It is now subject to the following three steps: 3. Discussion after the OPM - this current 8 week comment period 4. Confirming consensus - where the appropriate SIG Chair will need to determine whether the proposal has reached consensus, or whethersubstantial objections mean that consensus has not been confirmed, and
5. Endorsement from the Executive CouncilIn this process, the discussions on the mailing list are given the same degree of importance as the discussion in the physical meeting.
In the final stage of the process, the EC may adopt a proposal for implementation or refer a proposal back to the SIG for further discussion. The EC may also decide to refer the proposal to a formal vote of adoption by the APNIC members.
Finally, in the present discussion, there has been a suggestion of making changes to the policy development process. To be effective, these suggestions would need to be formally proposed and passed through the current process, as summarised above. The full details of the current Policy development Process are at:
http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/dev regards, Save -- Savenaca Vocea, Policy Development Manager, <save at apnic dot net> Asia Pacific Network Information Centre http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 On 27/09/2005, at 2:44 PM, Che-Hoo CHENG wrote:
[With my APNIC EC hat on] The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNICSecretariat/EC after enough discussion and consultation) for formal voting by all the members on-site or through online voting on MyAPNIC. I don't think it can be blocked by the people going to APNIC meetings. So, don'tworry too much on this part. :) Che-Hoo --- MAEMURA Akinori <maem at maem dot org> wrote:Stephan, Out of 2006, 2016 and 2026 the most realistic target should be 2006 and this is a major assumption to take this interim solution. We might have some unexpected delay, but in my mind, a detailed proposal to be raised for discussion at APNIC21, Perth Feb 2006, and to seek the membership concensus in the next, APNIC22. I am sad to see that you like to regard us NIR people doing something badly political or playing a selfish process just for our short-term benefit. We need to keep on convincing you that we are reasonable enough. With the EC hat on from now on, For the process, APNIC Secretariat is aware that concensus in the on-site meeting is not enough to implement it into the operation, while APNIC want more and more people come to on-site meeting. That is why you have the room for objection on the mailing list. Right now one or two strong objection are seen on the list against on-site concensus, they may cease or we have some more objections. Such situation will be reported and reviewed by the EC for its endorsement. That's our process which is already in effect. IMHO membership vote for all policy proposals would be unreasonably heavy, but I'd like to have opinion from everyone. Kind Regards, Akinori In message <200509271111.55014.stephan at telstra dot net> "Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001] "AbolishingIPv6 per address fee for NIRs"" "Stephan Millet <stephan at telstra dot net>" wrote: | Thank you for your response, however I do not believe that | you have addressed the major points of the objection I've raised. | | The IPv6 fee for NIRs is proposed to be abolished because | it is "too complicated" . This does not strike me as a sensible | reason to remove the fee. | | You call it an "interim solution". When does the new fee schedule | arrive? 2006? 2016? 2026? It seems to me that once the NIRs get | this IPv6 fee waived they have no interest to bring in any new fees | in the future. With the current policy process then all they need | to do is to keep sending their people to APNIC meetings and they | will block any new fee proposal indefinitely. | | I have proposed that to stop this form of meeting stacking by the | NIRs that all policy proposals be passed to an online vote by the | entire APNIC membership, and that the EC approval of the policy| proposal is only possible if a majority of the members are in favour.| | Regards | | Stephan Millet | | On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:41, MAEMURA Akinori wrote: | > I do agree NIR system might be more complex than not having | > that. | > | > However it is really disappointing for me to hear you say | > like that multiple lauguage and culutural system is too | > complicated and it should be abolished. Thus it sounds | > as a joke no longer because NIRs have made a tremendous | > effort for years to include non-native in-country stakeholders | > into APNIC's policy process. | > | > | > That was a small proposal to propose abolish remaining 10% | > of IPv6 per address fee, where IPv6 PAF contributes 1% of | > APNIC's revenue. NIRs said "to simplify" after they know | > the size of impact. Moreover it is for interim solution | > until we have more appropriate NIR fee structure - NIRs think | > current PAF structure will never fit for larger allocations. | > | > | > | > Anyway, we would be really happy to have on-line discussion | > in order to have the same picture of this issue. | > | > Keep on discussing. | > | > | > Regards, | > ----- | > MAEMURA Akinori Director, JPNIC IP Department | > maem at maem dot org , maem at nic dot ad dot jp | | _______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir_______________________________________________ sig-nir mailing list sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir