Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments

    • To: "apnic-talk at apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
    • From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
    • Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:37:02 +1300
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=c3po; h=received:received:dkim-signature:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state: x-received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:content-type; bh=NDQVu44St3Enwaw3iHaXgasdx7XeuLM9RCO/pzfKbC4=; b=0xd1x6qWlXkxryD+AzNGDsAc2tywiWEw3MpXrn7NKQgQQs+jQafOF/mNv9dLKp39isVWPO8kAJ+je 7pQRgMDjZxfqQfSEl6QmMdH7k3/VwbL+lAC6qvOZMgAI87Jbp5kCl6RV3y+Q5sC3ovcxn1euPDePB0 lob/Vffpizukitdw=
    • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=NDQVu44St3Enwaw3iHaXgasdx7XeuLM9RCO/pzfKbC4=; b=drJxVP03NOx8w18m8T08lsz9WwCSMxPY1D5N2yGxMskx54Vy1bP3AHZCQU3Ux0k/sf eYfJemCy9sHzuGup7kX1pXaCoHYPs/7Cil7ZcUMcj+3jGcQNCgnszJqHtXiJvQrUL/Zv lzRC+tHp5FrVNU/w9vmjNlG5IKIrZloUvQYik=
    • In-reply-to: <>
    • List-archive: <>
    • List-help: <>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <>
    • List-post: <>
    • List-subscribe: <>, <>
    • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>

      • On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com> wrote:
        Your opinion is small when it is just you... and Andy and even if it is 10 more. ÂThere are 4000 members of APNIC... An opinion with a small group should NOT impact any operations or no matter what country we are in, anyone could do the same (and in the past have tried).

        And yet we do precisely that to make address policy - the group that makes those decisions works in that way - the vast majority of the members take no part in the process. Note the definitions from the Tao of the IETF below:

        Consensus Decision MakingÂ
        • Consensus = âgeneral agreementâ taking into consideration comments on the mailing list and at the meeting.
          • Show of hands is a way of âbroadly gauging opinionâÂ
        • Comments via Remote Participation are welcome
        • Example definitions from Tao of IETF:Â
          • a very large majority of those who care must agreeÂ
          • strongly held objections must be debated until most people are satisfied that these objections are wrong
        I reckon anyone who's posting on this list cares in some way about the future of the stewardship of Internet address space. They wouldn't be posting if they weren't.

        The key question here is to what degree does attendance at a sequence of so called Internet Governance meetings actually benefit current and future holders of address space or is it simply something that creates the illusion of activity when most of the work that the RIRs were set up to do has been completed i.e. an orderly rollout of the IPv4 address space.

        Because, to be blunt... I don't care what it is that the vocal extreme minority (a couple of people) have to say about anything if it is not backed up by the will of the membership body.... no matter how valid or reasonable that position is. ÂIt is called a democracy.
        Actually it's not a democracy - it's a membership organisation where different groups have different voting power.Â
        If you don't trust them, replace them... but do NOT expect any action from an announcement at a AMM.

        And yet the EC put up a slide at that meeting saying:

        Member EngagementÂ

        • The EC welcomes comments, suggestions and questions from members, stakeholders and all others with an interest in APNICâs functions and operations

        • We strive to improve the ways in which we:Â
          • Understand and respond to the needs of our members
          • Work efficiently and effectively in our core functions of responsible address administration and accurate registry managementÂ
          • Engage with the broader Internet Governance forums to ensure that Asia Pacific voices are an integral part of the processÂ
          • Deliver value to our members and clientsÂ
        And you say that if we want them to listen to our views we need to stage a take over of the EC?