Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM

    • To: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:55:33 -0700
    • Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <D77675A2-72E9-48A9-8BAA-25A5E1DFB1F4 at apnic dot net>
    • List-archive: <>
    • List-help: <>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <>
    • List-post: <>
    • List-subscribe: <>, <>
    • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
    • References: <> <>
    • Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
        On 14/03/13 23:51, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic dot net> wrote:
        >Hi Masato
        >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, âInternet Governanceâ 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 âInternet
        >Governanceâ as it is now defined, and many people would regard IP address
        >management and policy development as critical, core, Internet Governance
        >Of course, APNICâs 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 âdoâ 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 APNICâs 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 â 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 â 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 âInternet governanceâ activities, I am not
        While you are asking my definition of "Internet governance", I don't think
        it is an appropriate question for me since my statement in AMM is a
        feedback for exactly what you have presented in APNIC 37 and in past APNIC
        Indeed, you and Pablo have facilitated 6 "IG" related sessions from APNIC
        Also, each reports, which you (and other APNIC staffs) have presented at
        AMM in these meetings,
        also have some slides related with "IG".
        te.pdf pp10-12
        nicate.pdf pp8-12
        riat-report-2012_1362099973.pdf pp29-32 pp29-35
        However, since we cannot find anything except a list of meeting names,
        pictures and buzzwords in these sessions and reports, we (at least I)
        don't have any clear view what your are trying to do in these activities,
        why you need to do so, and what is the outcome from each activities.
        So, if I must say something about the definition, my definition in this
        thread is
        "What Paul Wilson and Pablo Hinojosa are spending their time day by day."
        I don't think it is good definition, but I cannot catch up any further
        explanation from you, and it is a problem.
        >  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.
        It sounds like "Everything in the world correlates with me".
        It is true in the meaning of universal gravitation or others, but we
        should make a boundary in somewhere since we only have limited resources.
        >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.
        Yes, but can you explain it in "English" which can be understandable by
        many of us?
        Even though I asked in the AMM not doing so, you are still using buzzwords
        like "Collaboration/Contribution" in this thread. What do you mean by? The
        languages I can understand are
        - APNIC funded $N to Conference-X
        - There is a session about topic-A, and Mr./Miss XXX from APNIC present
        this presentation in there,
          and we got a feedback from Mr/Miss YYY and his/her feedback was ....
        - APNIC has a offline discussion with Org-X about topic-B, and we agree
        with them in following points.
          (or we cannot agree with them in following points from these reasons)
        something like that, but I have never heard any such explanation and
        BTW, the reports, I listed up above, are very good example of BAD trip
        report. If one of my team members would do similar thing in his/her trip
        report, I would never approve their next business trip, and I think it is
        quite common in other companies also.
        >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.
        As I said in AMM, the fact, which I had as a example of negative impact,
        is directly related with one of APNIC staff's task, and I don't want to
        share it in public since my objective is not criticizing each staff.
        However, as I also promised to you in AMM, I have already shared it with
        you after the session. Isn't it enough indication to you? If not enough,
        why don't you ask that question to your managers and staffs in your
        office, instead of asking a person who is working more than 10,000 km away?
        As written in By-law 51, DG has a responsibility to direct the secretariat.
        If you were not able to find and fix resource allocation issue in APNIC by
        yourself, it means you are not directing the Secretariat in enough level.
        Let me ask two questions. When is last APNIC staff meeting you attended
        physically? And how often you are still participating there?
        BTW, <<> doesn't have links
        to APNIC 35 and 36...
        is empty.
        Masato Yamanishi
        >Thanks again and I look forward to hearing Member views on this or
        >anything else youâd like to bring to our attention.
        >Best wishes,
        >Paul Wilson
        >Director General
        >On 14/03/2014, at 9:18 AM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
        >> Dear All,
        >> As you know, we had a session about "Internet Governance" in AMM on Feb
        >> 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
        >> 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, 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