[apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM

    • To: <apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
    • Subject: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:18:26 -0700
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
    • List-help: <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • Thread-topic: IG discussion in AMM
      • Dear All,

        As you know, we had a session about "Internet Governance" in AMM on Feb 28th.

        In that session, I expressed two concerns for current APNIC's approach for Internet Governance activity.

        1. In current approach, it is NOT clear that Internet Governance has relevance to our daily businesses and operations in the Internet.
             As a result, current approach is making a gap inside APRICOT and/or APNIC community though its intension is involving more
             participants to Internet Governance activity.

        2. While there is a question for its efficiency, APNIC is spending too much budget and human resources for Internet Governance 
             activity and it is causing negative impact for APNIC daily operations as RIR.

        (If you want to know more details, please see a copy of my statement attached at the end of this e-mail,
         or a transcript from page 31 at https://conference.apnic.net/data/37/28Feb14-AMM-2-final.txt)

        While EC promised to ask members' comments for this issue in next member survey, 
        I also would like to ask you (not only APNIC members, but also everybody) to express your views about this issue on this list.

        Rgs,
        Masato Yamanishi

        =========================from transcript=========================
        I have two major concerns about this context.
        
        First, it is very important to keep liaising with the
        
        other bodies, like ISTAR, ITU and UN.  I also understand
        
        your intention, Paul, in introducing the governance
        
        discussion in this community and involving more people
        
        in this discussion.
        
          However, despite your intention, actually you are
        
        making a gap in APNIC community and APRICOT community,
        
        because the discussion has only buzzwords, many
        
        buzzwords, like "globalization", "fragmentation",
        
        "coordination", "cooperation", "interaction",
        
        "evolution", "accelerating", "encouraging".  I pick up
        
        these words from your presentation.
        
           I can pick up more from other presentation, but it
        
        is a waste of time.
        
           Also, it has very few realistic things.
        
           Another good example is the video message from ICANN
        
        CEO on Wednesday's session.  It was very short message,
        
        just 20 seconds, I think.  But he just said, "IANA
        
        should be global."  What did he mean by "global"?  Isn't
        
        IANA global already?  I cannot totally understand his
        
        comment.
        
           Also, people in the governance discussion often say,
        
        "Without xxx, the Internet will stop or will die."  But
        
        it's not true.
        
           Let's consider the case if the Internet governed by
        
        ICANN will be corrupted totally for some reason.  What
        
        happens?  Is this the end of the Internet or is this the
        
        end of the world?  Totally not.
        
           In such case, I think Google will say, "Okay, we can
        
        provide alternative solution.  You can resolve all
        
        existing domains by asking to 8.8.8.8, also we can
        
        provide additional features, like filtering focusing
        
        size, because we have enough data from gmail service;
        
        also we can provide additional service.
        
           How about this?  Everybody use that service and
        
        everybody will become more happy.  No problem.
        
           People saying, "Without xxx logic," it is like the
        
        boy who cried wolf.  There are so many such people in
        
        the governance discussion.
        
            As a result, many people, in particular working for
        
        operators, saying, "Oh, this discussion is not related
        
        with me, and also related with my company.  Those high
        
        level people are doing something, but it's not for me."
        
        
            Even if they were to bring it back to their company, the
        
        reaction is, "Oh, then, what next?"  Nothing happens.
        
            It means you fail to involve operators, not only
        
        individual level, but also on the company level.
        
            The second concern: in my understanding, main object
        
        of APNIC is regional address registry.  However, it
        
        seems you are spending too much resources for the
        
        governance discussion.  In this context --
        
        APPLAUSE -- resources means HR resources, budget and also
        
        meeting time, including this session.  I don't want to
        
        open details in here, but I have clear evidence which
        
        shows APNIC is spending too much resources to the
        
        governance discussion and as a result, it is causing
        
        negative impact for daily work as RIR.
        
            I don't think it is your intention, but the fact
        
        is fact.
        
            Then it is not a comment only from me.  I talk with
        
        many people in yesterday and I heard same concerns from
        
        multiple people, directly and indirectly.
        
            As one of the APNIC members, I would like to ask two
        
        things to our EC members and also our Director General.
        
        The first one is considering the way to approach the
        
        community regarding the governance discussion.  Current
        
        way is totally misleading.  Okay?
        
            The second one is limiting the resources which will
        
        be used for the governance discussion, because it
        
        already has negative impact for daily work at RIR.
        
        Thank you.
        =========================from transcript=========================