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: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:50:29 +1000
Cc: sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <200511250509.jAP594a11022 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>
Organization: Cisco Systems
References: <200511250509.jAP594a11022@mail.nic.or.kr>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)

>>Okay, there is no end to this discussions.
>
> This is wrong again.

?? Gosh, everything is wrong. Everyone wrong, Chanki right, what a surprise!

> Your subjective view is involved here again.
> Some of the members still want to discuss.

Yes, and if you actually *read* what Izumi just said, "there is no end
to this discussion" means it is going round and round in circles without
resolving anything. I accept it might be an alien concept to have
discussions at KRNIC and within the KRNIC membership given your obvious
desire to dictate, but in the rest of the Internet, we discuss, and we
agree or disagree, etc...

> You should not intervene the discussion.
> (Open, transparent... you know the stuff)

Well, Izumi seems to know exactly what open and transparent is; earlier
you have proved to the entire readership of the NIR and Policy SIG
mailing lists that you do NOT want open or transparent discussion.

philip
--