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: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:20:40 +0500
- Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
- Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cKB6mRRega7HeRw2++zmEKLatl2r8EwbiLzJU954FvU=; b=RZxTbdn0qU39VtOharWgPuP5N4uS1IFqMDZrJUKgA4v1ZJL1lsb6VWfJKqUZtki/GH JAdEJIUnykBAWDHh6uVx/n1CjrD8Q4q/4A3dmxZ/1ih0nxBQc6pdfEujLuzDRWGWhefK b2OlxwDu0EA+QF3jJjAfnpjfRzjC35VO1PeLWBtRoonXXsUb1SWMQz2FArE5BMNFARNK 8rTIGggpPw/DMaXwuRy6JPo5NmG+dD7KRONsqfnF80VR+5wyiIdFaBvSR78eWNwGFjfg b2aPiDXFqf5bORgS5K/xcalPJi1SXDpcS7dF70Sb+ryilLBTazUUYN4rUSjs/uN3pzU4 BLpw==
- In-reply-to: <CF4CC96E.85D8B%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
This is a gap which I'm pointing out.
I agree but thats how it works isn't it? We elect EC members and then they decide what is best and then they let us know what they are doing and then we object and ask them to make certain changes, I don't see any issue in this mechanism. But I do support your stance for asking EC to review APNIC's policy on IG matters.
It is another example which APNIC needs to tackle as daily task.And, can I ask your additional thought about your comment?
I can recall 2 APNIC staff meetings with my CEO to address IPv6 adoption. Being the core-comm of IPv6TF Pakistan I can resonate above comment. Yes, APNIC should focus more towards IPv6. So now the debate should be "take resources from IG related activities and invest in IPv6 adoption related activities" rather then changing APNIC's stand or its policy towards IG related engagements.
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 moreparticipants 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 basically agree that the situation is different in each country.However, do you think current APNIC's IG activity is reflecting your situation enough?
No, APNIC's IG activities are not 100% reflecting our situation but yes, APNIC is addressing some of the very key issues we've been facing for quite sometime. I'm not aware of any APNIC engagement with the regional governments so definitely its not impacting much. But I don't want APNIC to halt these activities rather derive it and channel it in a proper direction where community get the benefit out of it.
So, lets agree on certain points:
- APNIC should review its policy on IG related engagements, rather then seizing it altogether.
- APNIC should increase its engagement in IPv6 adoption related activities including intensive training and awareness programs.
I guess this will help to move forward.
Aftab A. Siddiqui.