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 16:38:27 +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: <200511240621.jAO6LRK21881 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: <200511240621.jAO6LRK21881@mail.nic.or.kr>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
    • 
      
      > The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
      > because the observation is only that narrow period.
      > (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored)
      > BIG MISTAKE!!!
      
      According to my understanding of the process, the whole idea of having
      the final comment period on the mailing list is to confirm if it is
      really okay to go ahead with the meeting consensus. If there are
      substantial objections on the mailing list, the meeting consensus can be
      reversed.
      
      > So the conclusion had to be something like this :
      >
      > Reasoning
      > 1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
      > 2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
      > 3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
      > period.
      >    "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)"
      >
      > conclusion
      > There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been
      > reached.
      >
      > Comments are welcomed on above observations.
      >
      > IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to
      > APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through
      > proper steps with consensus.
      > (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
      >
      > Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
      
      I understand you have a different opinion over whether the objections on
      the mailing list was "substantial", but this is just a difference in our
      opinions. I can't declare consensus when I believe more discussions are
      needed.
      
      I'm sure your opinion on the mailing list will be reviewed by the EC
      too, so why don't we leave it upto the EC to make the final decision?
      
      
      Regards,
      Izumi
      
      Chanki Park wrote:
      >>Hi all,
      >>
      >>
      >>>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/msg
      >>00001.html
      >>
      > 
      > 
      > I looked at above reasoning again.
      > 
      > It contains a SERIOUS flaw.
      > Let me explain why...
      > 
      > Quoting from above announcement
      > 
      > <snip>
      > 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)
      > 
      > <snip>
      > 
      > Conclusion:
      > -----------
      > There is no clear general consensus for the proposal.
      > 
      > -end of quotation-
      > 
      > 
      > The conclusion is only for 8 week comment period
      > because the observation is only that narrow period.
      > (The consents on the proposal at NIR SIG and AMM were totally ignored)
      > BIG MISTAKE!!!
      > 
      > So the conclusion had to be something like this :
      > 
      > Reasoning
      > 1. The proposal reached consensus at NIR SIG of Open Policy Meeting.
      > 2. The proposal reached consensus at the APNIC Member Meeting.
      > 3. It seems there are split opinions on the proposal during 8 week comment
      > period.
      >    "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)"
      > 
      > conclusion
      > There some minor people objecting on the proposal, but consensus has been
      > reached.
      > 
      > Comments are welcomed on above observations.
      > 
      > IMHO, the proposal was developed exactly according to 
      > APNIC Policy Development Process, and it went through 
      > proper steps with consensus. 
      > (There were some chances to proposal, but it went through as it is now)
      > 
      > Chair and co-chair correct your mistakes and announce again, please.
      > 
      > It should be reported to APNIC EC for the final approval, isn't it?
      > 
      > 
      > 
      >>>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?
      >>
      >>
      > 
      > 
      > Let's correct the mistake first, and then discuss what to do.
      > 
      > I am trying to correct mistakes, and while doing this I also reviewing
      > APNIC policy development process.
      > We may need to elaborate some of APNIC policy development process
      > for the future.(I don't have a good idea yet.)
      > 
      > Regards,
      > 
      > Chanki
      > 
      >