I can do enough to wake up those who sleep, not those who pretend.
PS: is APNIC planning to charge IP addresses based on my revenue & after auditing my balance-sheet? Regards Desi Valli From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au]
Desi, I'm struggling to keep up as the "problem" keeps changing. Now it appears to be not the election but the cost of IPv4 addresses. Got news for you: It's not getting better as the scarcity is going to turn IPv4 into a market place. The cost of APNIC membership is going to be the least of your worries next year when you want an allocation and nothing is in the APNIC
till. RIPE/APNIC/ARINs budgets all appear to be roughly the same with APNIC's being the smallest, despite having a large geographic area and large number of member countries). APNICs is in AUD$ where as RIPE and ARIN are Euro and USD$ respectively.
You now appear to be demanding that we're all equal with voting, but you want to be more equal in terms of cost because whilst you want equal voting power you don't want to pay equally and that you'd like to be guaranteed seats in the EC
and jobs in management at APNIC. I think some of the argument is quite strange as it is entirely based around a false premise: The organisations paying APNIC membership are not, on the whole, individuals, they are large corporations. Incumbent telcos, webhosting companies, ISPs. To give some examples, how does it make a difference to the poor if companies like (and I have no issue with these companies but I'm using some names to give a sense of size) like Sify, Bharti, TATA pay a little bit less? Or even the
company you work for who based on claimed turn over, would be similar in size to the largest hosting companies in Australia! So pulling the whole "think of the poor nations" card is a very cynical one as it doesn't represent the facts. This issue isn't about "human psychology" about change. It's about the feeling that the people wanting the change want to do it for reasons that are not in the legitimate interest of all APNIC members, but are tied up entirely with their
own benefit, no matter how they are expressed. The entire budget for APNIC is around AUD$11m/year. Even if you halved by eliminating training on IPv6, member meetings, most of the staff etc it it's going to make almost no difference to the cost of IPs. Complaining about the class
of travel etc is a non-starter for me and changing this around I doubt would make little difference to the budget - APNIC staff have to travel a lot because they cover such a large area and have to attend meetings around the world, that's why travel's a big
chunk of the budget. Significant business travel is a major burden to the people who have to do it. It may appear to be fun to those who don't but it's quickly wearing on the soul. Seriously, this is a lot of dressing for the same original issue which is, at APNIC29 your candidate didn't get elected and so now you want to change everything to suit your own interests. MMC On 12/07/2010, at 6:14 PM, Desi Valli wrote:
Hi all, First of all I as a supporter of the reforms getting proposed, would like to convey some of my opinions which I feel is important. The topics are getting deviated, hence thought it would
be better if I express. The suggestions given for election reform, is an action plan for some of the problems that some sections of the members have felt in the last few years. It is been proposed as a solution
to those problems, and there is no intent of politicising anything. The primary concern is the feel of few sections of the members that their concerns are not heard or been ignored for the reasons of lack of understanding the ground reality. Let me try to
draft this in a strategic point of view, by picking up one of the issues. (it will be too cumbersome to take every issue for discussion in this forum) Problem: Cost of resources. Actions attempted: Last 6-7 years, the member community has highlighted issues of cost of IP, currency fluctuation and issues that are caused due to market dynamics of a particular region. The solution proposed by demanders: Let the price of IP addresses be based on per-capita of a country instead of standardisation. While such solution seem to be difficult from an implementation
perspective, the management (including EC), offered discounts to LDC by 50%. An appreciate-able action plan, even though the proposal was pending for years for decision. But better late than never, I appreciate this step. However, for developing countries the usual answer we get is; 1. Is the APNIC fee makes a huge difference in the overall business cost? 2. The operational cost of APNIC need to be considered while some decision of this kind need to be taken. Other than the above to response there were no scientific reasons on why there shall not be a reduction in prices of IP addresses. Now, let's address these two responses. 1. As far as the answer to the first question is concern, the responsibility of reduction in cost of operations always remain with every organisation. While, such responsibilities are addressed,
everyone tries to see available avenues, and it is an on-going process. Now, to understand the significance of few thousand dollars from a developing country perspective, it is important to understand the geo-political environment of those countries. Unless,
we understand the ground realities, it is impossible to accept a happening as a problem. This is not pertinent only between countries but sometimes within a country too. For instance, I'm from a small village-town where I paid 16Rs (0.35USD) per year as my
school fees (yes its per yearJ). Even now, after 20 years of me completing the school, it has increased the fees to 25 Rs (0.54USD). While
I express these to my colleagues in Delhi, where I live now, they can't accept or understand. But this is a reality of the economic condition of this side of the world. PS: The above said instance need to be taken as an example for understanding the importance of costing in developing country perspective, not to be ignored with statements like irrelevant
in this context etc., But to add more to this, we can correlate the importance of cost with the penetration levels of broadband in the developing countries. I don’t mean that the cost is totally because of IP
address. But cost is one of the reasons, and it is our responsibility that we address the cost issue holistically, be it IP address or Bandwidth price. For a country like India with a per-capita of less than 3000 USD, every $ is a concern. If the authorities
fail to accept this reality, then it is nothing but ignorance of reality of divergence in economic status. 2. Now answering the number two reason: If the cost of operations of APNIC is high, we wanted to participate and understand, whether there shall be anything that could be done by a person who is from a different geography, who
shall understand the needs of this side of the world. But to address any issue and take a judgment it is important to understand both the side. Hence, we wanted to be part of the EC team, and we followed the by-laws as is. But later, it is clear that there
shall never be participation because of the current loopholes. Yes, the proposal of election reform could be a result after the lost election. But the intent is not to politicise but to resolve the core issue that this part of the world faces. This is a scientific
approach, not a political approach. a. What is
the need (one of the needs): The cost of IP need to be addressed. b. Where is
the need: For most of the developing countries. c. Why is the
need: The current generation is responsible for making developing countries into the leagues of developed countries. My grandfather hasn’t set everything
for me that I enjoy today. It is me, who has to fight all odds to set the standard of living of myself. While everyone of this part of the world thinks like this, they are becoming innovative. We offer mobile calls at 0.01USD, and no developed world can think
off. So, Answer to why the cost need to reduced, is a localised matter and not to be questioned by those who hasn’t been in the ground. d. When is
the need raised: for the last 6-7 years. e. Who is to
fulfil the need: Local Market, which is depending upon the monopolistic model of operations. f. How shall
it be addressed: Approach the authorities at APNIC. We approached and we were back to square
one with the same answer – Cost of operation. When you analyse the cost of operation, that is not in line with what a stake holder will wish it should be. (Enough highlights are given already). What is wrong if some stakeholders feel
that there is a room to improve the health of finance of APNIC with innovative strategies to improve productivity. Now for any strategic planners, the option left with is alternative solutions. In normal circumstances, we go to competition. But as said, it is a monopolistic model. Then what else is
left with. g. Identified
Alternative HOW: Participate as part of the decision making group and see whether there shall
be alternative options open for consideration. Henceforth, it is decided that there shall be participation by a member from this side of the world. But now comes the barrier. There shall never be up-lift-ment of the poor ever (with lesser IPs but more members),
because the rich people (with large-pool of IPs but less in terms member count) elect the parliament, hence forth the views of the elected members are almost of the rich people. Even though the constitution states that the elected member shall be independent
and neutral, in reality the system doesn’t allow that to be. Of course, there will be priorities to those who voted us. That’s human psychology. So, your requirements will be ignored because of lack of credible ground reality information, you won’t be heard, you can’t ever get elected and contribute to the cause because of current
system, then what else is supposed to be done other than demanding for reforms. (one more option is being open in supporting CIR of ITU) Even in real world, all reforms are initiated by those who felt suppressed and discriminated. Let’s not create a scenario of real world at least in this wonderful virtual world. Try to
understand the demand by keeping ourselves in others shoes, not with a predetermined and conclusive mind. h. Available
alternative Solution: The Election reform proposal is nothing but a methodically derived solution for the problems that this side of the world faces. In case if other members feel that this solution
is wrong and have any other alternative solution for the problems, isn’t it better to propose such solutions rather than rejecting the needs of some sections of members. Simple rejections show that we do not have solution but want to be defensive, that’s not
constructive. If APNIC is a corporate, then members are stake (Share) holders, they have all rights to demand a cost reduction so that the investors (members in this instance) get better returns (reduction).
Are we saying, that there shall not be a demand from the stakeholders? Will such demands be termed as politicising? If we fail to even recognise the needs of the stakeholders, how do we even attempt to look for solutions if any. Rejections of demands of section
without valuable reasons of a society shows a imperialistic approach. A member as a stake holder has all right to demand a cost reduction in operations. Why that be criticised as politicising. Comments like inefficiency are supposed to be defended by the
authorities who are in responsibility. Not by another stake holder. Authorities may choose to demonstrate the works and efforts that they had taken in the past or taking in the future for the demands of this part of the world, so that the points that were
over-looked by the this segments of the members shall be corrected. They are answerable to each and every member. Instead of that, why do we rotate the same old wheel. I’m not able to understand why no one is attempting to explain the good reasons to continue the current models without any reforms. Instead why do we criticise the reform proposal. Will
it not be constructive if the positive aspects of the current models are highlighted and left on to members to take their judgement? I haven’t seen any measurable, quantifiable and productive inputs on; · why the
current election process is good for all sections of the members. · How is
it benefiting the members. · How is
it not discriminating the members. · How shall
it address the future geo-political demands of this side of the world. · How it
shall not help to have geographical divisions in the APAC Internet society in the near future? · Why and
how it shall contribute to the growth of Internet, especially in the developing world. · Why such
outdated models shall not create issues like CIR? (replacement of monopolistic model) If the operational cost needs to be addressed, then there shall be participation from those sections of members who feel the heat and try to find alternatives than what is practised today,
that shall improve the efficiency of APNIC’s operation, thus reducing the cost of operations. For which an election reform is required. Isn’t that scientific conclusion. Why do we respond with a defensive approach. Let’s make this conversation productive,
constructive and other members who are part of the developed world shall contribute with alternative solutions if any. But please understand the issues of this side before taking any judgments. Instead of giving positive inputs on the current policies, twisting languages into “country”ians, political, controlling APNIC etc is saddening and unconstructive. Let’s discuss like serious
professionals and responsible people and discuss on the pros and cons of the existing system and the proposed system. As far as inputs like inefficiency is concern, these are to be taken as feedbacks by EC. Unless we have a mind to accept and invite feedbacks, we will never be innovative. Even if these
are considered offensive, let EC defend/explain these with inputs on their actions and steps that are not understood. Why would we members defend, henceforth offend each others. Does anyone said, the members who are supporting the current system are politically
inclined to APNIC or EC? No, then why would the election reform proposal be termed as political. As far as transparency is concern, every corporate falls under the rules of law. As per the books of law on corporate affairs, most countries expect everything to be transparent to the
stake holders except operational strategies, matters like Intellectual property and patents. A publicly listed company has even restrictions on salaries of top management, based on set governed rules. That means remunerations of employees are to be known to
stakeholders. In such circumstances, a publicly funded company (APNIC), with employer being the member, except member accepted matters everything shall be transparent. More an public organisation becoming transparent, more the community gains trust. Now regarding, comparing the finance with RIPE or ARIN, is because of lack of understanding on the diversity in the geo-political and economic condition of the APAC region. Whether it’s
ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC, AFRNIC, non has such a vast diversity in terms of culture, economy, language, standard of living etc within a single RIR., For instance AFRINIC has mostly similar kind of countries. We shall not avoid looking for innovations, by stating
that others are also same. That’s not the way Internet innovators work. People look to make differences. Let APNIC be the LEADER and be innovative and tell the world that there are astonishing ground-breaking approaches to handle various issues of the wonderfully
diversified world. Now there is a proposal for a “CHANGE” – Election reform. Obviously, any change there will be a resistance. Change management is a Science. But let’s make resistance with scientific inputs
on the advantages on the current system rather than offending the proposed system emotionally. There shall be inputs on the drawbacks of the proposed. There is no political approach, rather a scientific approach for a solution to the problems. If there are
alternative solution, propose that too. Last, as per human psychology studies & also in management theories it is stated that any CHANGE is resisted due to 5 following reasons. 1. Culturally
it is not acceptable – for example introducing beef for the commonwealth games players in Delhi is not acceptable to many in the society. 2. Visible threats
- Insecurity 3. Unpredictability
in the change, hence forth Uncertainty – insecurity. 4. Favouritism
or dislikes - Subjective 5. The old is
superior than new changes. – Quantifiable. The inputs on EC shall be taken as feedbacks of some stakeholders, and let those be addressed by EC. If we are convinced on the efforts that are overlooked, we shall publicly appreciate
and as well as be regretful. Is there any effort to reduce the cost of resources by realigning the operational costs? I request the members to resist the change (Election reform) by choosing any one of the scientific approach stated above and express their views. Item no 4 is not worth to be considered. Note: Sorry for a long email, but I found the discussion is getting diverted into things like nationalism and political’ism (Is there any such English word?J)
and it’s important to bring it hard back to track. Thank you for reading such a long mail.:-) Regards Desi Valli Message sent using India’s leading Hosted Microsoft Exchange service. For details visit http://net4.in/net4app/aspx/Exchange/exchangeIntro.aspx Please consider the environment before printing.
|