Re: [sig-nir] Re: Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion

  • To: Edward Chen <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-nir] Re: Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:13:10 +0900
  • Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <332882542.28766 at cnnic dot cn>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: "APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries \(NIRs\)" <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • References: <> <> <>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
      Edward Chen wrote:
      > I am from CNNIC,my name is Tao Chen.
      > I also think we should clarify the definition of "Consensus" .As I know,there ara always some persons who oppose each
      > proposal,no matter the proposal is relative to him or not.But sometimes the chair seems to be hard to decide whether
      > the proposal reaches the consensus or not.So I hope we can reach consensus about the definition of "Consensus" at first.
      The issue you are pointing out seems to be about the problem over the
      current definition of consensus, and not about the proposal itself. This
      is beyond the discussions of the NIR SIG, so I suggest you to make a
      proposal at the policy sig, or provide feedbacks to the APNIC secretariat.
      > Another question is if a proposal does not reach consensus,does it mean there is no problem at all or the proposal is 
      > not worthy to continue discussion.In other words,if there is big divarication among APNIC member,should we stop it here only by saying "we can not reach consensus" or should we reflect the situation to EC members and get some positive opinion from them.I do not think sarcasm can resolve the problem.In fact,KRNIC reflects a important problem to APNIC communities,if we want to work out it ,we should think how to deal with the question above.
      Sure, I certainly understand the needs of the NIRs, which was why I have
      suggested to form a working group to continue discussions.
      So the answer to your question is yes, we can continue discussions even
      after "no-consensus" is declared over the proposal.
      > Tao Chen
      > CNNIC
      > ----- Original Message ----- 
      > From: "Philip Smith" <pfs at cisco dot com>
      > To: "Chanki Park" <ckp at nic dot or dot kr>
      > Cc: <sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net>; <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
      > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:15 AM
      > Subject: ()Re: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"
      >>Chanki Park said the following on 24/11/05 16:31:
      >>>My only agenda is correcting a mistake.
      >>And what mistake may that be? That KRNIC/NIDA can't get its own way all
      >>the time?
      >>While KRNIC/NIDA may dictate to its membership what does and doesn't
      >>happen in Korea, this is not what happens in the rest of the Internet.
      >>Did you consult with your membership in an open forum about all the
      >>APNIC policy proposals which were proposed in Hanoi? Not that I can find
      >>any evidence of, that's for sure.
      >>I don't recall anyone from KRNIC standing up at the APNIC meeting and
      >>saying "we discussed this with our membership, and X% thought it was a
      >>great idea, and Y% thought is was bad". I recall one NIR that gave this
      >>sort of input, and they are to be congratulated for encouraging open
      >>dialogue within the community.
      >>So KRNIC/NIDA clearly makes decisions on what is good and bad for its
      >>membership. Same way as you clearly now want to make decisions on what
      >>is good and bad for the APNIC membership.
      >>>And if we need, examine(or elaborate) our policy development process.
      >>Ah yes, the new policy which says that everything that KRNIC wants is
      >>automatically approved regardless of people's opinions? Mmmm, I can see
      >>that one being very popular (not!).
      >>*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      >>sig-policy mailing list
      >>sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-nir mailing list
      > sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net