[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:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Thread-topic: IG discussion in AMM
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.
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 22.214.171.124, 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.