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

  • To: Edward Chen <chentao at cnnic dot net dot cn>
  • Subject: Re: RE: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re:
  • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:17:03 +0900
  • Cc: 'David Chen' <david at twnic dot net dot tw>, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <332883988.02463 at cnnic dot cn>
  • 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> <332883988.02463@cnnic.cn>
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
    • > I think the we miss one support vote,in fact the statistic number is
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 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
      If you mean about the support expressed from Ram, I have counted as "1
      person supported the proposal conditionally.(non-NIR) ". In anycase, I
      have not judged consensus simply in terms of numbers, but also looked
      into the discussions on the mailing list when I made the decision.
      
      Izumi
      
      
      > 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: ()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
      > 
      > 
      > *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
      > _______________________________________________
      > sig-policy mailing list
      > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
      >