Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

    • To: "'MAEMURA Akinori'" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp>, <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>, <pranesh at cis-india dot org>, <tony at apnic dot net>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
    • From: "B C Jain " <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in>
    • Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:36:52 +0530
    • 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: <>, <>
    • References: <> <> <> <> <>
        I thank Mr Maemura for taking time to respond on behalf of EC. As expressed
        by him towards the end 
        that these are his views but EC broadly shares the same. Hope EC agrees with
        these views.
        I also raised this in AMM at Petaling Jaya. I request EC/Secretariat to
        elaborate on the below points
        a) APNIC delegation stand on various issues at the forthcoming meetings. And
        the basis of arriving at the same.
        Hope in clear language.
        b) Specifically, what are the views APNIC delegation would take on Security
        risk and snooping issues. Basically most appropriate solution is that
        content considered objectionable by a Sovereign should be removed at the
        source wherever it is hosted. And how this would be achieved by
        Multistakeholder approach. 
        c) Also I request EC to consider reduction of IP charges from NIRs. And very
        strongly support that there is need for increased effort as a mission by
        APNIC to increase IPv6 usage. 
        With regards
        Brajesh Jain
        -----Original Message-----
        From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
        [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
        Sent: 19 March 2014 12:42
        To: myamanis at japan-telecom dot com; pranesh at cis-india dot org; tony at apnic dot net
        Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
        Dear Masato, Pranesh and everyone,
        I know this is very late response for your request for the EC to clarify.
        At Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:41:35 -0700
        In message <CF4CC73D.85D7D%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
           "Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress"
           "Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>" wrote:
        | Pranesh and All,
        | While I'm not new to APNIC, I have same question/concern.
        | Can EC clarify it?
        Montevideo Statement was crafted among the I* CEOs in the situation, as Tony
        has already told, with very limited time allowance with very quick moves at
        that time, and so was the I*'s reaction to NTIA statement.
        Technically speaking on the basis of our governing provisions, the Executive
        Council has function to act on behalf of the Members in the interval between
        AGMs, and to manage the activities, functions and affairs of APNIC.
        More practically, the EC represents the Membership to manage APNIC's
        activity, and need to comply the will of the Membership, sometimes with the
        broader community.  
        We have the power to authorise the activity by DG and Secretariat for the
        Membership, but need to synchronise our thought on the authorization with
        the Membership.
        That is why we set a timeslot to discuss the Internet Governance issue in
        the AMM this time, after we announced our support for Montevideo Statement
        in January.
        It was great to see very active discussion there, and that it triggered the
        continued discussion on line.
        As Masato points out, now Paul is more engaged in the activity of
        coordination among our fellow organizations and ITU arena, which is based on
        the EC's authorization.  We authorize becuase we think it needed.
        I understand it looks like politics game with little thing, if not nothing,
        to do with Members' own business.
        However from the viewpoint of a company whose business is serving community
        with Internet Resource, one of which is APNIC, it is really important to
        address the risk of unwanted non-viable arrangement and to have people with
        other stakes understand our position.
        Moreover, as already mentioned, the forthcoming couple of years are quite
        crucial stage for us to keep our healthy business environment.
        That's why we authorize these activities by Secretariat, and what we need to
        have you understand.
        As we have many things to come, Director General and the EC will have more
        communication each other to consider these actions, than we have already
        been doing.
        I know, through my own business, that how Internet Governance issues are
        difficult for people (e.g. of tech community) to realize,  I am still on the
        way to find how I can couple the issue we confront adequately with
        community's interest.
        The EC needs to have the Membership's support with well-informed consent,
        and of course we need to change our thought just in case we found it was not
        of the Membership and community, and I hope the current discussion will
        valuable for the purpose.
        MAEMURA Akinori, my own hat on, but I am sure the EC well sheres these
        | Rgs,
        | Masato Yamanishi
        | On 14/03/14 23:01, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india dot org> wrote:
        | >Tony Smith [2014-03-14 21:42]:
        | >> As I'm sure you appreciate, the news from the US has just arrived this
        | >>morning and a lot of the details are still coming to light. We're
        | >>planning to prepare something that explains what this development means
        | >>in more detail when more information is confirmed.
        | >
        | >I'm sorry, but I'm new to APNIC's lists.
        | >
        | >Was there any consultation within APNIC before APNIC's leader's name was
        | >added to this statement?  Could you also point me towards the community
        | >consultation / mailing list discussions that took place before the
        | >Montevideo Declaration was signed as something APNIC endorsed?
        | >
        | >> But for now, we wanted to alert everyone to this news and the fact
        | >>consultation will begin in our region in Singapore.
        | >
        | >Could you outline the intra-APNIC consultations (i.e., not the ICANN
        | >consultations about which ICANN's published a document) that will take
        | >place with regard to this?  Which mailing list will these discussions be
        | >directed towards?
        | >
        | >-- 
        | >Pranesh Prakash
        | >Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
        | >T: +91 80 40926283 | W:
        | >-------------------
        | >Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
        | >M: +1 520 314 7147 | W:
        | >PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter:
        | >
        | _______________________________________________
        | apnic-talk mailing list
        | apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        apnic-talk mailing list
        apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net