Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
- To: Tony Smith <tony at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IG discussion in AMM
- From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:33:39 +0530
- Cc: "apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net" <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=/H8jB9wGKDNxhr/OBsaSjSjX4W6WVArPbOhAnojbsUY=; b=BlxeFj5pGvpsalqgQlQDY9/HT/YSYPdFBZ0oJ/e06/VW0iQjPFHREhSziA/Raryw3B BTwFLcUJd8dJHn5fwN099RCOptHMoBThvJ6Zdas9W1BA/ZjrTb3mDS1ExyZUSIQCzUwn z9V0rD0SFSqPP6BLGC4xjBGNvpN1Mw/k3uBX3sXCwZ2/XL09EVA/TN6zdTOaZESd3YXo TAUv/f0eP3kX4ZTqWcCHTKNsg2/v6hWeTgwQzjgpdjFRbVeGREahHLf9gfJU7QXMPYa/ LiFqZaAHAK0cWU7AkW7PLU6U1Z4XAVbqWMPAVH425yp2Nt+OPxa5ivdOu7Ah0uKQB4gZ zAFg==
- In-reply-to: <CF4F1276.83A2%tony at apnic dot net>
- 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>
"....But this is only the beginning. Now the community needs to demonstrate
more than ever that it is capable of assuming the responsibility which the
US Government is now prepared to consider handing over......"
Is this the position of Apnic or your individual pls?
If it is of Apnic and as has been substantiated by your referrence to Montevideo statement, it is bit obvious that there must be some plan to assume the responsibility which the US Government is planning to hand over.
What is that plan pls? If u don't have that plan, I look forward to Paul's response.
Regards & best wishes
I hope the response Paul sent on Monday regarding your view about APNIC's
services helped address your concerns. It was the point we wanted to cover
off first as Member services are the priority. However, let me
respond now to your other positions you raised in this email.
We hear the message loud and clear that you've found it difficult to
follow the progress of some of these discussions and that you'd like
communication on this so that you can better understand the value, and why
APNIC is addressing Internet governance issues. I'm relatively new to
APNIC and the governance arena so I sympathise as like you, I've found it
a complex area with competing concepts, relationships and interests
trying to reach consensus.
As you pointed out with the list of presentations and meetings, APNIC has
been transparent in sharing its thoughts and engaging with the community
on this topic for many years. We'll do our best to make sure that we
are communicating clearly on these issues so the topic is more accessible
and it's apparent why we are participating. I know you already contribute
significantly to the community with your Policy SIG work, but if you'd like
to be involved in helping this effort to bring the discussions closer to
the Members I'd welcome your input.
However, as others have said, we strongly believe APNIC's participation in
these activities is important.
The Montevideo statement, and the amount of effort since then in
trying to include the community in these discussions, has contributed to
the recent announcement by the US Government to initiate a transition of
the IANA functions towards a multistakeholder process.
This is something which we have been working very hard to achieve
alongside many other organisations, and this milestone is an excellent
example of the value of these efforts.
But this is only the beginning. Now the community needs to demonstrate
more than ever that it is capable of assuming the responsibility which the
US Government is now prepared to consider handing over.
As Paul said in his previous email, Internet governance in its broadest
sense is what APNIC does. The community-driven policy process that you
help lead is actually a prime example of the Internet governance model
that APNIC has been promoting throughout the years. Capable community-led
policy development processes like this will help demonstrate that
multistakeholder models are strong enough to support the Internet well
into the future.
On 15/03/2014 8:55 am, "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
>On 14/03/13 23:51, "Paul Wilson" <pwilson at apnic dot net> wrote:
>>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, “Internet Governance” 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 “Internet
>>Governance” as it is now defined, and many people would regard IP address
>>management and policy development as critical, core, Internet Governance
>>Of course, APNIC’s 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 “do” 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 APNIC’s 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,
>>- 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 – 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 – 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.
>>- Support for the regional IGF (APrIGF) to ensure that regional voices
>>(especially our Members', and AP Governments) are included.
>>Whether you define these as “Internet governance” 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".
>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
>"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
>As written in By-law 51, DG has a responsibility to direct the
>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, <<http://conference.apnic.net/previous-meetings> doesn't have links
>to APNIC 35 and 36...
>>Thanks again and I look forward to hearing Member views on this or
>>anything else you’d like to bring to our attention.
>>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
>>> I also would like to ask you (not only APNIC members, but also
>>>everybody) to express your views about this issue on this list.
>>> 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
>>> 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 22.214.171.124, 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
>apnic-talk mailing list
>apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net