Re: [apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel
I'm confused here:
How does the price anyone pays vary by "subregion" across APNIC?
http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/how-much-does-it-cost
Sets out the prices people pay. How does being in India, Australia, Japan or Fiji change the cost?
MMC
On 08/07/2010, at 9:26 PM, Col. R. S. Perhar wrote:
> Dear Mr Akinori,
> I have already given my views on the issues concerning voting,tenures of EC
> and DG.
> However I would wish to comment on a issue from your response, Quote, "I am
> not so sure what you exactly mean by the words, and in
> general, the per address unit price of APNIC membership fee
> varies *from member to member*. A larger member has lower
> unit price. Currently I have no idea the Secretariat can
> respond to the request with a reasonable effort, in terms of
> the cost for that or of appropriateness, subject to what you
> exactly need" Unquote.
>
> If I understand correctly APNIC is the repository of address resources for
> the Asia Pac region. Its main concern relates to providing this address
> space to all its members irrespective in a fair and impartial manner. Now
> if this thought process is ok, then the next most important issue is not
> only to provide the address space fairly but also at a just cost. Just cost,
> as far as APNIC is concerned should mean similar cost across the whole
> region. In other words a ISP wanting address space in sub region "A" should
> pay the same cost as a ISP in sub region "B" for similar address space.
> There may be minor variations due to exchange rate.
>
> Now coming to the present case as quoted above. APNIC is allocating address
> space and charging due fees. There is nothing hidden about it. Now suppose I
> want to know what are fees being charged and paid by ISP's in different
> regions, collating of this information should not be a problem as the
> information should be already with APNIC. Transperency in this aspect is not
> only good but a neccestiy. I am surprised as to how in your 10 years as EC
> this information has not been shared with EC and the EC taken initiative and
> done a exercise to ensure parity across all regions/ sub regions.
> May I request that this information be made available earliest or latest by
> the coming APNIC meeting.
> Best regards,
> Col R S Perhar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 9:33 PM
> To: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net; brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel
>
> Dear Brajesh,
>
> Thank you for your input. Now I have been a regular
> participant in ICANN meetings as well since June 2009 in
> Sydney, and have found a lot of things from its governance
> scheme.
>
> I agree ICANN is wonderful in terms of its transparency, and
> I argue APNIC as well.
>
> You picked up my words 'lots of things not disclosed'.
>
> Let me clarify that it didn't mean APNIC hides too many
> information. As the representative of APNIC's Membership
> to oversee the Secretariat, the Exective Council holds
> a certain amount of delicate and in-detail information with
> DG and Secretariat, which should not be disclosed. The EC
> members sign NDAs for this purpose. I am sure ICANN BoD has
> the same situation and I suppose they hold much more since
> ICANN has a number of law suits.
>
> It is generally the case for the board of any corporations,
> and that's what I meant.
>
>
> Regarding the per IP cost in your words, I was in the ISPCP
> meeting where you (or your colleague? ) mentioned about it.
> Unfortunately since it was the meeting within Generic Name
> Supporting Organization, I am afraid it was not relevent
> there.
>
> I am not so sure what you exactly mean by the words, and in
> general, the per address unit price of APNIC membership fee
> varies *from member to member*. A larger member has lower
> unit price. Currently I have no idea the Secretariat can
> respond to the request with a reasonable effort, in terms of
> the cost for that or of appropriateness, subject to what you
> exactly need.
>
>
> I am not either so sure what you exactly mean by "full
> transparency". I don't think you mean "until any single
> evidence", which obviously Secretariat cannot achieve.
>
> ICANN's budget planning (e.g. FY11 budget recently ratified)
> shows only break-down by budget segments. If you mean you
> are satisfied with that granularity of ICANN's, it might be
> good for us to study.
>
> Regarding transparency, our development in recent years is
> having Tresurer Report to explain that.
>
> Your input here should be a guidance for the EC to make
> improvement plan for it if so needed. Thank you very much.
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> MAEMURA Akinori
>
>
> In message <170E0F26927B4C5A989A3A08E704465C@in.spectranet.com>
> "[apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel"
> "Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in>" wrote:
>
> |
> |
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: Brajesh Jain [mailto:brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in]
> | Sent: 06 July 2010 13:32
> | To: 'MAEMURA Akinori'; 'terry at terrym dot net'; 'Skeeve at eintellego dot net'
> | Cc: 'apnic-talk at apnic dot net'
> | Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
> |
> | Dear friends,
> |
> | I am very happy to see a glimpse of open discussion. As a person attending
> | both recent APNIC at KL and recent ICANN at Brussels ,I really felt vast
> | difference in approach. ICANN appeared to be so open and transparent.
> |
> | Of course, I probably would not know much before I join APNIC EC. Mr
> | Maemura's response refers to' lots of things not disclosed' . Here is
> | paradox. My chances of getting to EC are bleak. Hence I would not know and
> | probably difficult for me to contribute. I would like to submit
> pointwise
> |
> | [vote per member]
> |
> | I entirely agree with the concern that users interest to be taken care.
> |
> | How about community of users in countries, who have never got any chance
> to
> | EC?
> |
> | The need here is how do we hear voice of all users and not of only few
> | regions.
> |
> | Vote per member is surely a good option here.
> |
> | [fixed term for the EC members]
> |
> | I understand that Internet community consists of very large number of
> | members, very wise and committed with knowledge of history and experience.
> | The decisions should not be based only on experience and history knowledge
> | of few persons.
> |
> | A member need not be an EC member to contribute. I refuse to believe one
> | needs to be in EC to contribute. Leadership challenge is to continually
> | develop the knowledgeable person pool. Experience and knowledge of past
> EC
> | members is welcome always.
> |
> | One term of 2 years is on the low side. Two terms help achieve both
> learning
> | as well as contributing. Training new team is also an integral part of any
> | leadership.
> |
> | [equal representation from subregions]
> |
> | Defining the subregion is very difficult. Yes , this is the view from a
> | closed mind. With openness ,not at all. ICANN, ITU and UN have all along
> | shown the way.
> |
> | There is need to first accept the there is problem in the present EC
> | structure. Once it is accepted, solutions would come by through effort and
> | leadership.
> |
> |
> | [Fixed term of DG]
> |
> | Good to learn that The EC is responsible to hire the
> | Director General.
> |
> | I just request to know, who is responsible for transparency of accounts.
> |
> | We have repeatedly asked DG certain information like cost per IP for
> | different countries.
> |
> | Present DG has not provided the same. I am sure that he is not being
> | advised by EC not to give account details. Recent ICANN Board meeting in
> | public forum at Brussels emphasized that there has to be full transparency
> | in accounts.
> |
> | I do hope in next APNIC meeting, detailed accounts would be available to
> see
> | for all community members who want to see the details.
> |
> | [mid-year meetings]
> |
> | Two APNIC Meetings a year is surely good.
> |
> | [travel]
> |
> | Expenses and source of income is surely a matter of the community
> | discussion.
> |
> | Accounts need to be shown with full details and transparency.
> |
> | Any Corporate head decides on the basis of assured source of funds.
> Delaying
> | NIR formation should surely not be a source of fund.
> |
> | Corporate heads are expected to manage expenses including travel.
> |
> | With regards and humility that I am stating the above with limited
> | knowledge.
> |
> | Brajesh C Jain
> | Spectranet
> |
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> | [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
> | Sent: 06 July 2010 10:55
> | To: terry at terrym dot net; Skeeve at eintellego dot net
> | Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> | Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
> |
> | Hi Colleagues,
> |
> | Thank you very much for the discussion. I could just keep
> | quiet here, or even I could think I should do so, but on the
> | other hand it should be good for the Community to have
> | thoughts from the EC side.
> |
> | Here I put several points along the discussion - they are
> | largely not at a single side but both sides included. They
> | are not an official position which the EC has, but it would
> | be nice of you to have them as an opinion from a community
> | member who have been long in the EC.
> |
> |
> |
> | [vote per member]
> | It is already long since the vote per member was raised as
> | an issue. It is a question of fairness, and it is really
> | difficult in terms of diversity of sense.
> |
> | One vote per one member should be fair if we thought it on
> | member basis - any single member has a vote with equal power.
> | It should at the same time be unfair if we would think on
> | user basis. A bigger member holds a bigger base of assignment
> | or end users. Here it might harm the interest of users who
> | are connected to bigger LIRs.
> |
> | It is a tough question for the Membership which is a composite
> | of smaller and bigger members.
> |
> |
> |
> | [fixed term for the EC members]
> | Yes I am a long standing EC member since October 2000. If
> | it were favourable, I am definetely too long. When I joined,
> | I needed to learn a lot of things which were not disclosed,
> | as well as things publicly known but difficult. I do think
> | I was better to work in the EC than I had been in the previous
> | term, here the more experience works for the better job.
> |
> | I agree that a new member will bring fresh and new thoughts
> | and new capability which he/she has gained through his/her
> | own profession, which will benefit the EC and APNIC. At the
> | same time the EC sometimes need the knowledge which is only
> | gained from the detailed history, which old timers can often
> | contribute.
> |
> |
> |
> | [equal representation from subregions]
> | It is great if we could have the geographical diversity within
> | the EC. But as Terry, who has rich experience in APNIC, said,
> | defining the subregion is very difficult. We might again have
> | a similar question of fairness like we have with vote per
> | member question.
> |
> |
> |
> | [Fixed term of DG]
> | This is very different from the three above which are the
> | matters of Membership. The EC is responsible to hire the
> | Director General.
> |
> | The EC is more than happy to have a variety of opinions from
> | the Membership, but I think it should be left to the EC.
> |
> | We are pretty satisfied with Paul Wilson's job right now,
> | and it is still hard to find a reason for new blood there.
> |
> |
> |
> | [mid-year meetings]
> | We have two APNIC Meetings a year - one is in summer and the
> | other is in winter with APRICOT. I think it is adequate for
> | the APNIC Community spread out all over the region to get
> | together. It is interesting to have another small meeting,
> | but if small mean limited number of participants, subregional
> | activities like *NOG, PACINET are good and APNIC has already
> | been involved in them.
> |
> |
> |
> | [travel]
> | This is very popular to be raised as an issue. I think it
> | would be only obvious that IF every staff and EC member in
> | any occasion fly economy seat, moreover at the tail of it,
> | then there would be no question. The current situation is
> | not that.
> |
> | It is a matter of treatment and/or work condition that the
> | cooporate entitles to an employee or an officer. In general,
> | assumptions and circumstances are very different from
> | corporate to corporate, and the head of corporate, which is
> | the DG in our case, manages its business there. It means
> | that once we raise one aspect as an issue, we need to refer
> | another aspect as the implication.
> |
> | I don't think that fits to the community discussion, frankly
> | speaking, but thank you for sharing your perspective.
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | [advisory committee]
> | Two points. 1: that of ARIN is for policy development process.
> | 2: I personally am happier to have inputs like this manner.
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | It went terribly long, but I hope it will work for the discussion.
> |
> |
> | Regards,
> | MAEMURA Akinori - a community member who is long within the EC
> |
> |
> |
> | In message <40536DD1-E9D9-45C6-BB89-CBBC2024F331 at terrym dot net>
> | "Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel"
> | "Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>" wrote:
> |
> | |
> | | On 06/07/2010, at 10:10 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> | |
> | | > Hey William,
> | | >
> | | > My thoughts on the below.
> | | >
> | | > - One member one vote. I'd like to agree, but it doesn't fairly
> | represent larger members with more at stake. It also enables stacking.
> | |
> | | That can/could/might happen now. The immediate knee-jerk reaction is
> 'why
> | does a larger member get more votes?' Do they have a more valid opinion of
> a
> | candidate for the EC? or on other Membership Voting topics?
> | |
> | | >
> | | > - Fixed 3 year terms for EC members - one term only. Well, not
> | massively opposed - perhaps 2 terms, but I agree that there seems to be a
> | pattern of encumbants getting re-elected which stops new blood getting in.
> | Maybe 2 terms max for 2 year terms.
> | |
> | | Closing out a person for life after any set number of terms looses the
> | knowledge base in that persons head. It also limits them from returning
> with
> | a fresh positive take on something.
> | |
> | | >
> | | > - Equal representation across Asia Pac? What do you mean by that?
> | |
> | | I think that is undefinable.
> | |
> | | >
> | | > - Director General Fixed term 5 years only once. Ok, I half agree.
> | There should be a limit, but I do acknowledge that it takes a while to get
> | the experience, relationships and everything involved with being the DG...
> | is 5 years enough? You take one year to go to some meetings and get a
> | handle, 3 years doing the job and 1 year to find the successor. I am a
> | believer that no job should 'be for life', and Paul has been there for 10
> | years... and it takes a long time to get the amount of experience he has
> | gained on all the committees, organisations and so on that he is involved
> | in. That said, there is always room for improvement and new blood often
> | brings this. So... 5 years, I think is too short, 7 years seems more
> | reasonable. And in no disrespect at all to Paul, but I do support fixed
> | terms with no extension and think that APNIC could benefit from some new
> | leadership. That said, I'm not opposed to former DG's taking on some
> other
> | sort of role in the organisation.
> | |
> | | sigh.. its up to the EC. I'm not a fan of fixed terms without extension.
> | In a not for profit that could lead to gouging by the appointed staff
> | member, ie "I'm only here for 7 years, I might as well get out of it what
> I
> | can". There have been many examples of these agency costs in history.
> | |
> | | >
> | | > - Mid-year meeting. APNIC is NOT Apricot, or the other way around.
> The
> | mid-year meeting has value. This industry is moving too fast to only have
> | interaction once a year. I believe there should be more 'micro' meetings.
> | I'd like to see them quarterly, with a specific focus - maybe only a
> weekend
> | or something.
> | | >
> | |
> | | Thats an interesting idea!!
> | |
> | |
> | | > - APNIC members fund DG luxurious travel. OK, I do agree with this
> | partly. I am VERY concerned that APNIC staff spend way too much time in
> | business class. The amount of APNIC staff that travelled to KL in
> | business-class was excessive in my opinion. I think that too many staff
> at
> | APNIC spend way more time travelling in premium seating while clocking up
> | tons of frequent flyer points for their personal usage. I think that all
> FF
> | points should be owned by the business and used first if possible for
> | travel. The travel budget is way too high I believe.
> | | >
> | |
> | | Speaking as someone who does a fair amount of international travel. You
> | need to consider the health and well-being of the employee directed to
> | travel in the name of business. A number of sensible organisations i know
> of
> | have a policy that mandates business or premium seating for any
> combinations
> | of continuos legs that exceed 6 hours. That is based solely on the
> | expectation that the employee 1) has a right to healthy travel conditions,
> | and 2) that the employee is expected to arrive in a condition being able
> to
> | represent the organisation. (and for a company that I am on the board for,
> | that means limited alcohol on the flight)
> | |
> | | If you are thinking about the larger concern of the travel budget, then
> | perhaps I would argue that only strictly necessary individuals are sent to
> | international meetings, or perhaps call for some level of collaboration at
> | the NRO level for information sharing such that the duplication of rir
> | attendees at meetings is reduced, perhaps saving all rirs some money.
> | |
> | | > That said... when a staff member is representing APNIC and is flying
> | with short notice, or arriving just before they are speaking/meeting -
> then
> | I'd like to understand the wisdom of not planning travel a little better.
> | Is the difference between Business Class and Economy is significant.
> | | >
> | | > Example: Sydney to Amsterdam. Business Class - $4476. Economy
> | $1100-$2000.
> | | >
> | | > So would it not be prudent to get there a day earlier to recover/sleep
> | and spend $300 on a hotel room than
> | |
> | | trust me.. the extra day doesn't always work. 12+ hours for me in
> economy
> | is excruciating, stressful, and a health risk - and takes more than a
> nights
> | sleep to recover from.
> | |
> | | > more than $2000 extra on a ticket? Even if you factor the daily wage
> of
> | the DG/senior staff, the savings here is significant.
> | |
> | | So is their health.
> | |
> | | >
> | | > I had concerns about the travel budgets before the last meeting and
> | asked the DG/EC for a report on the travel expenses which they provided
> | (albeit slowly).
> | |
> | | And what was your analysis of that?
> | |
> | | >
> | | > What I would like to see is something like an Advisory Committee of
> | members only... that the EC can consult on member issues. ARIN has this
> and
> | I think it would be useful for APNIC to consider it.
>