Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM

    • To: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
    • From: Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic dot net>
    • Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:25:18 +1000
    • Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <>
    • List-archive: <>
    • List-help: <>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <>
    • List-post: <>
    • List-subscribe: <>, <>
    • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
        Regarding APNIC services, and Masato's suggestion that APNIC service quality has been suffering:
        I expressed my concern about this issue during the AMM, and I made a point of discussing Masato's complaint with him during the lunch break.
        He is understandably reluctant to provide details publicly, and I appreciate that he does not want to name or blame any APNIC staff; however for the sake of transparency I think it is important to clarify this situation.
        The issue as I understand it is that at APNIC 37 the Policy SIG chairs were expecting progress to be made on electronic polling for consensus forming during the Policy SIG.  I do regret in this case that the expected progress was not made, and I apologise sincerely.
        Since the meeting at Petaling Jaya, APNIC staff have discussed this further and agreed an approach to ensure policy support is adequately addressed. The team will soon be in touch with the policy chairs directly to discuss the details.
        The Secretariat understands the policy process is at the absolute core of APNIC activities and I would like to give my full personal commitment to support the Policy SIG.
        Thank you Aftab for your comments that you have not experienced any issues with APNIC’s services.  I do hope that everyone in the community will continue to raise any concerns with us openly.
        On 15/03/2014, at 4:14 PM, Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com> wrote:
        > Hi Masato,
        > Glad to see that you have started this thread to engage more people to have their opinion heard. 
        > 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.
        > I partially agree with your above comment regarding the relevance of IG with daily businesses and operations. With my little experience I do understand your view point because the country you are based in Internet is governed through certain rules rules, norms and standards developed through consultation and well drafted framework. But in our part of the region, the picture is quite different, I hope you understand that difference. We are going through consultation phase to define those rules and standards to govern the internet. I'm not sure how to define the gap in community because of IG activities. Please help me and others to understand that how it is creating a gap.
        > 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.
        >  Yes, I'm also interested to know that how much budget and human resources have been spent on IG related activities and its outcome. Not in terms of $ but in terms of value. I beg to disagree that it is causing any negative impact on APNIC's daily operation as RIR. I'm a very constant troublemaker for APNIC helpdesk and Secretariat and I've never witnessed any delay or inappropriate response from APNIC staff. So I'm not sure what made you say that. Would you like to share any incident or issue which was not properly addressed?
        > Regards,
        > Aftab A. Siddiqui
        > _______________________________________________
        > apnic-talk mailing list
        > apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net