| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
I wish to voice my strong objection to this proposed policy. The basis of this objection is that it is not reflective of the position of the entire membership, but is a self-serving policy that merely serves the interests of a small number of National Registries, at the ultimate cost of the entire remainder of the membership. If the National Registries pay less then all the rest of the membership will pay more. I see no reason why these small number of privileged members whose total contribution to APNIC is less than 10% of the finances can dictate the direction of the entire membership organization. The rest of us can't afford to attend in person these meetings in exotic locations, and because we can't attend we can't vote against such unfair policy proposals that serve only the financial interests of national registries while the rest of us end up having to pay more. If I understand the transcript of the members' meeting on Friday the rational for this proposal is that the Japanese think that the existing IPv6 fees are "too complicated". This is complete nonsense! Are they that simple-minded that they cannot understand the fee schedule? Does this "too complicated" excuse set a precedent for the rest of us? If I think that the formulae for my organization's membership is "too complicated" can I also get my fees waived? In voicing a strong objection to this policy because it is unfair to the rest of the APNIC membership, I would like to propose a change to the APNIC policy process - namely that _all_ policy proposals be put to the entire membership of APNIC with a one member one online vote mechanism, and that final approval by the EC be conditional upon a majority of all the APNIC members voting in favour of the proposal. At least this policy proposal will prevent the current meeting stacking by NIRs, who then abuse the process by voting themselves fee waivers! Stephan Millet
