Re: [sig-nir] RE: [sig-policy] Re: Decicion :[prop-028-v001]"AbolishingIPv6peraddressfeeforNIRs"

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Chanki,

[...]
> 
> Is four objections out of more than 1,000 members substantial 
> enough to reverse the process?

1,000 members didn't participate in the discussions. Also, I don't think
consensus can be judged just in terms of the numbers. As I menioned in
my earlier mail, I have looked at the status of the discussions on the
mailing list, and from the state of it, I judged that we need more
discussions over this proposal.
I totally understand that NIRs have problems with the IPv6 current fee
scheme, and I'm not trying to ignore this.

All I am saying is let's have more discussions also with the people have
expressed concerns over the proposal and come up with a way which is
more agreeable to more people.


[...]
> 
> 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.
I've requested for the EC reviwed in my earlier mail, so let's wait to
hear their position.

Izumi