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

  • To: Chanki Park <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:30:36 +0900
  • Cc: 'David Chen' <david at twnic dot net dot tw>, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <200511230743.jAN7h2917456 at mail.nic dot or dot kr>
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>, <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • References: <200511230743.jAN7h2917456@mail.nic.or.kr>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
    • 
      > 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.
      I already explained my reasoning on the mailing list, but if there is
      anything unclear about it, I'd be happy to explain further.
      Save has already provided us with the citation, so I will skip this.
      
      http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/archive/2005/11/msg00001.html
      
      > 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...
      As Philip has mentioned, we can still continue discussions over this
      proposal and work on it. We have to make a decision over this particular
      proposal at some point whether or not we postpone the decision, and I
      felt that more discussions are needed which was why I declared
      "no-consensus".
      
      This however doesn't mean it is the end of the proposal - we can
      continue discussions on this topic.
      
      Perhaps, we can set up a working group to work on this?
      
      
      Izumi
      
      Chanki Park wrote:
      >>Hi,
      >>
      >>
      >>>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?
      >>
      > 
      > 
      > Sure, 
      > 
      > 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
      > other 
      > 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? :)
      > 
      > Regards,
      > 
      > Chanki Park
      > 
      > 
      >>philip
      >>--
      >>
      >>
      >>>Regards,
      >>>
      >>>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.
      >>>
      >>>Observations:
      >>>-------------
      >>>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
      >>>immediately
      >>>   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
      >>>
      >>>Conclusion:
      >>>-----------
      >>>There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
      >>>
      >>>Reasons:
      >>>--------
      >>>+ Points which have not been addressed at the meeting was
      >>>raised on the
      >>>  mailing list which implies no enough discussions took place at the
      >>>  meeting
      >>>
      >>>+ Those who have expressed support for the proposal are the 
      >>
      >>proposers,
      >>
      >>>  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 
      >>
      >>conditionally,
      >>
      >>>  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
      >>>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
      >