Dear Community:

 

Craig’s email opens as a community email addressing “Colleagues”, but later on the tone changes as he is not referring to me but addressing me by changing to “you” and “your organisation”

 

Logic of the whole event was, APNIC staff’s comment during prop-118 could be misunderstood as implying publicly Larus Cloud Service was gaming the CONFER system during our colleague's presentation, when I confronted them with that after the session closed, I was asked directly in private if we did it.

 

According to my reading of the Email of Craig, such behaviour is acceptable for APINIC staff. And the company or individual they are defaming have no rights to be angry, because the reputation of the individual or the company does not matter, the volume of the voice is more important than serious accusation or doubt made by APINIC staff.

 

We value our reputation dearly, we value the community dearly, and bottom up process, community based policy development process are the core parts to the very existence of the RIR system, CONFER being a larger step forward towards more inclusive community, that would allow people who don't speak English well to express their opinion as well as others, are an important step both for the community as well as for APINIC.

 

That is the reason, assuring anyone abuse the very core system of the community, is accusing someone manipulate the consensus process, it is the most serious crime you can accuse someone for in this community.

 

And because of the seriousness, naturally we feel emotionally angry, and while we trying to explain, however we thereafter being confronted by APNIC staff with direct doubt and accusation of being liar, I am human, raise the volume of my voice while I made the complaint to the staff's boss, was the very least I can do.

 

We hope for an open transparent community, fairly treating everyone, not because community give someone power, that someone can bully community member at personal will.

 

 

I have told my story to Paul Wilson and Gaurab Raj, and already admitted in my first email I was emotional, however, what we do not accept is that APNIC is implying a member's serious wrong doing without evidence, that is not considered as the source of these emotions being released and just brushed away.

 

As we all little man, we are nobody, but we elect people to power positions for our own good, not for them to use that power against us.




On 2 March 2017 at 11:04, Craig Ng <craig@apnic.net> wrote:

Colleagues

 

Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place within the room.

 

This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session, and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.

 

During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on policy proposals.

 

No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable.

 

Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear below.

 

Our investigations are continuing.

 

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.

 

There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a calm and respectful manner.

 

As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.

 

APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here: https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.

 

APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system when they become available.

 

 

________________________________________

Craig Ng 

General Counsel, APNIC

www.apnic.net

 

 

*  1 164800843@qq.com

*  1 18501153217@163.com

*  1 472014849@qq.com

*  1 478756983@qq.com

*  1 5672602@qq.com

*  1 792202889@qq.com

*  1 998412357@qq.com

*  1 e@qq.com

*  1 hh@qq.com

*  1 jj@qq.com

*  2 2152384@qq.com

*  2 425426781@qq.com

*  2 475100176@qq.com

*  2 506307082@qq.com

*  2 890145786@qq.com

*  2 97421506@qq.com

*  2 c@qq.com

*  2 d@qq.com

*  3 280548565@qq.com

*  3 284257715@qq.com

*  3 45430166@qq.com

 

 

 

 

On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Lu Heng" <sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:

 

Dear Community,

I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.

My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.

But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.

This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.

This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.

I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.

While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.

As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!

If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.

If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.

In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.

Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.

While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion. 




--
--
Kind regards.
Lu