Re: [sig-nir] Re: [sig-policy] Final call for comments: [prop-028-v001]
membership fee proposal to be developed which is budget/business related,
not policy related.
As for this particular proposal which is being put through the policy
development process, the EC will make decision after hearing all the
comments raised up during the Final Call for Comments period.
Hope that it's clear now.
Regards,
Che-Hoo
--- Che-Hoo CHENG <chcheng at ieee dot org> wrote:
> [With my APNIC EC hat on]
>
> The new membership fee proposal for NIRs will be put up (by APNIC
> Secretariat/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't
> worry 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-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
>
