Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM

    • To: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
    • From: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic dot net>
    • Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:51:58 +1000
    • Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <CF478AD2.856B4%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • 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>
      •  
        I appreciate you starting this thread. This is an important issue which I am happy to discuss, and I do hope to hear more views from the community.
         
        The definition of Internet Governance has different interpretations so I think it is worth trying to create some clarity here.   As I said during one of the APRICOT sessions, “Internet Governance” may be a new term, but it is not a new thing; and APNIC has been involved with Internet Governance since we started, in 1993.  We are a part of “Internet Governance” as it is now defined, and many people would regard IP address management and policy development as critical, core, Internet Governance activities.
         
        Of course, APNIC’s immediate responsibilities are much smaller than the overall Internet Governance ecosystem: in terms of geographic scale (i.e. regional vs global), participation (APNIC members vs many other Internet stakeholders), and scope (IP addressing being only one small part of the entire Internet landscape).  So although we actually “do” Internet governance in our work (IP address management and policy development), we also "contribute" to it on the broader scale, in various ways.  I stress that in doing this, our contributions are always related to APNIC’s core mission and activities.
         
        Let me list some of these activities, to see whether any of these are of concern to you:
         
        - Contribution to meetings and forums (apart from APNIC meetings) in which IP addressing and related matters (e.g. Internet policy processes) are being discussed;
        - Contribution as technical experts to forums such as OECD, APECTEL, APT, and ASEAN;
        - Collaboration with other RIRs where needed, to ensure that global IP addressing environment is properly understood and represented;
        - Outreach to Governments and governmental organisations, to ensure that we understand each others' work and needs;
        - Collaborative training activities outside of the traditional APNIC audience - e.g. to the Justice Sector, and other Governmental organisations – in use of APNIC services;
        - Collaboration with other counterparts in the technical community (e.g. I* organisatioons), to ensure mutual support for our organisations, and to develop joint positions (such as the Montevideo Statement);
        - Collaboration with others in the AP community - e.g. APCERT, APIX, APTLD, APIA, APAN and NOGs – to support our shared goals of a stable, secure and growing Internet;
        - Membership and participation with various organisations - e.g. APT and ITU-D as appropriate to help disseminate relevant information;
        - Active and deliberate support for the IGF as the best place for Internet governance discussions (and related activities, e.g. NETmundial);
        - Support for the regional IGF (APrIGF) to ensure that regional voices (especially our Members', and AP Governments) are included.
         
        Whether you define these as “Internet governance” activities, I am not sure.  But most of them have been going on in various forms for many years, and are increasing with the size of our job, with the level of interest in the Internet and importance of the Internet to Governments and others.  But again, all activities are focussed on IP addressing: on ensuring good understanding of addressing issues, of the IP address registry, of IP address and related technical issues, and also of APNIC.  
         
        From your message, it seems clear that we need to do more to explain these activities, their purposes and benefits.  I am more than happy to provide more information and discuss further.
         
        Finally, on your second point I am concerned (as I said to you during the AMM) with your suggestion that the daily operations of APNIC are suffering in any way, for any reason.  APNIC is a member service organisation, so I am very keen to understand exactly what is happening in this case.  So I would ask you to explain this, and for any other service concerns to be brought to my attention.
         
        Thanks again and I look forward to hearing Member views on this or anything else you’d like to bring to our attention.
         
        Best wishes,
         
        Paul
        
        
        Paul Wilson
        Director General
        APNIC
        
        
        
        
         
        On 14/03/2014, at 9:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
        
        > Dear All,
        > 
        > As you know, we had a session about "Internet Governance" in AMM on Feb 28th.
        > http://2014.apricot.net/program#session/66335
        > 
        > 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=========================
        > _______________________________________________
        > apnic-talk mailing list
        > apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk