Re: (èeD?ìáê?-′?óê?t?é?üê?à???óê?t)RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:

  • To: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>, "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Subject: Re: (èeD?ìáê?-′?óê?t?é?üê?à???óê?t)RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:
  • From: "Edward Chen" <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:59:59 +0800
  • 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
  • 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: <332883447.10569@cnnic.cn>
    • 
      
      
      4 persons supported the proposal.(NIRs/NIR members)
      1 persons supported the proposal.( non-NIR)
      1 person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) 
      4 persons were against the proposal.(non-NIR APNIC members)
      
      Please be careful to make survey
      
      Tao Chen
      CNNIC
       
      > 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
      To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
      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>
      Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 9:50 AM
      Subject: (èeD?ìáê?-′?óê?t?é?üê?à???óê?t)RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
      
      
      >> 
      >> Hi Chanki,
      >> 
      >> 
      >> > 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.
      > 
      > Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial 
      > enough to reverse the process?
      > 
      >> 
      >> > 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.
      >> 
      > 
      > You have to modify the announcement and declare it again.
      > Because it contains SERIOUS LOGICAL error.
      > 
      > As I mentioned earlier you only observed small part but concluded in full,
      > which means you only looked eyes but described whole face. There is 
      > no credence in that description.
      > 
      > Two errors have to be fixed.
      > 1. The logical error(observing small part but concluding in full,)
      > 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
      > 
      >> 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?
      > 
      > The proposal can not go to EC unless you withdraw your announcement
      > and correct the mistake and publish.
      > 
      > Please, correct the mistakes.
      > 
      > Regards,
      > 
      > Chanki
      > 
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir