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

["Edward Chen" <chentao@cnnic.net.cn>]

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

Tao Chen
CNNIC
 
> 2. Tilting to one side with the information of splits 4:4:1.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chanki Park" <ckp@nic.or.kr>
To: "'Izumi Okutani'" <izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Cc: "'David Chen'" <david@twnic.net.tw>; <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>; <sig-nir@lists.apnic.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@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir