Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingI

  • To: Chanki Park <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
  • From: Save Vocea <save at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:36:25 +1000
  • Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200511230743.jAN7h2917456 at mail.nic dot or dot kr>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <>
    • Hi,
      Answers to 1 & 2 below is described in the APNIC Policy Development Process document:
      1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
      "When the "comment period" has expired, the appropriate SIG Chair (and Co-chairs) will decide whether the discussions on the mailing list represent continued consensus."
      2. What is the meaning of "consensus"?
      "Consensus is defined as "general agreement" as observed by the Chair of the meeting." and on the mailing list:
      "Consensus is assumed to continue unless there are substantial objections raised during the "comment period"
      It is the chair's responsibility to judge this.
      3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
      (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
      The 8-week comment period is an essential part of the process, for 2 reasons: to allow proper consideration of the decision of the meeting; and to allow people who have not attended the meeting to participate. The discussion on the mailing list has no more or less weight than the discussion in the meeting.
      Save Vocea
      Policy Development Manager
      APNIC Secretariat
      On 23/11/2005, at 5:43 PM, Chanki Park wrote:
      Dear all,
      There are some different opinions regarding this decisions.
      It's a procedural matter.
      Procedural matter? Can you explain what you mean by this?
      The [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs" proposal went
      through the following steps.
      1) The proposal was drafted by NIR community and discussed on NIR SIG M/L.
      2) The proposal was discussed at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
      * We had a few objections, but consensus was reached among NIR members.
      3) NIR SIG Chair reported at the APNIC Member Meeting.
         * There were a few objections, but the consensus was also reached.
      4) The proposal is went through 8 weeks comments period.
         * We had four objections.
      At this point, split opinions were observed :
      Some says four objection is good enough to declare "There is no consensus", and some says "four objections during comment period is not good enough to
      declare no consensus"
      1. Can chair declare a decision under this situation?
      2. What is the meaning of "consensus"?
      3. What is the importance of "8 week comment period"?
      (The weight of AMM's decision vs. objections during comment period.)
      Without having clear answer to above questions, a decision was published
      that "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
      Please, the chair and co-chair provide members your detailed reasoning on the decision with citation from APNIC documents that lead your decision.
      If provided reasoning and citation are acceptable by the members,
      I am O.K. with the decision by the chairs.
      If not, I think we have to pause here and build a new process.
      (I looked at the APNIC policy process, there is no process
      if final announcement goes into discussion)
      There were many alternative way to deal with this situation instead of
      declaring "there is no clear general consensus for the proposal."
      ie) send it to EC that chair can't decide
          postpone the announcement and have open discussion with
          the people who objects
          and so forth...
      Some people are getting together to discuss and decide
      what should be proper way to proceed.
      Ah. So in the APNIC Open Policy process, the NIRs operate in secret,
      making decisions behind closed doors, and then presenting those
      decisions to the world. How very open...
      Why can't the discussion happen on this mailing list?? That's
      what it's
      for!? As far as I remember, several ideas had been presented,
      so why are
      the NIRs afraid to discuss these ideas in public?
      I am not sure if NIRs had ever operated in secret. At first, just like any
      policy proposal, only a few people who are interested got together drafted
      the proposal based on their discussion.
      However, after that things went open, discussed on open NIR SIG M/L
      as well as face to face APNIC Open Policy Meeting. We followed APNIC
      policy development process. If you look at the APNIC web site, it's there.
      We can get back with wise answer, I hope.
      No one can achieve wisdom when existing in isolation.
      Now I am seeking members wisdom openly, will it do? :)
      Chanki Park
      Chanki Park
      Dear All,
      Regarding [prop-028-v001]"Abolishing IPv6 per address fee for NIRs",
      I would like to conclude that although strong support was
      expressed from
      a few members of the community, there is no clear general
      consensus for
      the proposal.
      Thank you all for participating in the discussions.
      There were comments from 9 persons on the mailing list on
      this proposal.
      4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
      4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
      1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR
      APNIC members)
      Major comments:
       + It is not fair for the rest of the membership to abolish
      the fee just
         for NIRs
       + NIRs are proposing to abolish the fee because the current fee
         structure is not fair for the NIRs
       + Questions were raised over why it needs to be dealt with
         rather than waiting until the new fee structure takes place
       + It does not make sense as business practice to abolish
      the existing
         fee structure without a replacement plan. The proposal cannnot be
         supported unless there is a replacement on the fee structure, or
         substitute the financial loss
      There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
      + Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
      raised on the
        mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the
      + Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the
        or those who benefit from the proposal.
      + Only unsupportive comments were expressed from those who do not
        benefit from this proposal. One support was expressed
        but this condition was not met.
      + Proposer has not responded to suggestions expressed by
      those who were
        opposed to the proposal.
       (the proposer does not need to take in the suggestions but
      should be
        able to explain why their proposal is better than the
      suggestions, or
        suggestions would not solve the issue they face)
      Side Note:
      The needs of the proposer can be acknowledged, but the
      proposal needs to
      be more agreeable to the rest of the APNIC community.
      Best Regards,
      Izumi Okutani and David Chen
      sig-nir mailing list
      sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      sig-nir mailing list
      sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net