Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
- To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>, "apnic-talk at apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
- From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:44:17 -0700
- Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state:x-received: return-path:received:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id: thread-topic:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=sgVNpuMWIZGGWez6cqfVvRIYGuO0OhNHSzB0nMjYReY=; b=2J9r665G5287z1dVt5iCCt1+xdWpKbXkiuFtHrdqkxE4mNwHKfBHSpQOlHKFTyyTjJO23Iwnhsehd JeLTkVCs0NIkfV1iPdJ9pN6Gg/f3pTiJds4qI4m7uTVFXAJk+5n6/W3LQsBePR+u98gJzQFA6b8Cxi MM0WW8tdETyVBpRw=
- In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGNyCuBrCOO5Yf6Hvad4w13W3TFrtBxKfKhfmzqrE43D8w at mail dot gmail dot com>
- 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>
- References: <CAEUfUGNyCuBrCOO5Yf6Hvad4w13W3TFrtBxKfKhfmzqrE43D8w@mail.gmail.com>
- Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
No, I'm not suggesting such thing.
What I'm saying is that we need to carefully consider how APNIC involve in IG discussion as RIR,
(I think involving in all discussion is not appropriate way as RIR)
and we also need to consider how much resources we can use for IG in effective manner,
and such consideration should be done by bottom-up process.
But, current approach is totally different.
So, we provided our opinion in AMM in this time. What is a problem?
1. From the transcript, you can see Rajesh and Brajesh also state their comments
2. From the transcript of Wed session (pp89-90), you can see Dmitry Burkov's comment.
3. I got applause multiple times during my statement
4. I heard same concern from multiple people before and after the session.
(Unfortunately, they have enough reason they cannot speak up in public, but some of them call the Wed session as "Bullshit" (sorry!!)
I never mentioned the size of my membership. I just said, I am a APNIC member.
So, I don't argue about the survey after AMM.
Also, some of EC members suggest to raise this issue on this list in addition to the survey, that's why I did so.
it DOES matter, since APNIC doesn't have indefinite resources.
In which my comment are you combining? You are creating new comment which is totally different from our intension.
Of course not, since we just speak up our concern and ask EC members to resolve it.
And EC members said they want to know more details. That is current situation, and why do we need to run for EC?
(or you run for city council whenever find a pothole on the road? Maybe you do so, but I don't)
Thank you for your advise.
Agree. But current outcome is very unclear.
Trusting somebody is different from blind faith.