Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments

    • To: Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
    • From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:08:50 -0700
    • Cc: "apnic-talk at apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at apnic dot net>
    • 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: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=JEjyzGA1rqIWheregfzEbk+GeokId2H5xkapLqDzEEo=; b=fSclunmalYYccwymZs1PG8Nrf9zrvreFvLN/0/hTKaNvxFEKZaabb/jUl1a3IP/cLYoZEqf+Irrhd Px3ThXM1d4XmpymvkOKFzPWLOEnjxYIF0ZK50tzFiI5KV2N6AihMKtnha90HGGcCIqZ/hhqknVrmaH OPllRXPLKPeehrz4=
    • In-reply-to: <CAEUfUGNSLX_KLuH5gUUnRRWVJ=KuMSG8Tni_cPnpqozkUAa_mw at mail dot gmail dot com>
    • List-archive: <>
    • List-help: <>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <>
    • List-post: <>
    • List-subscribe: <>, <>
    • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
    • References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
    • Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
      • Skeeve,

        Again, I suggest you reading APNIC by-laws since you can find answers for many of your questions in below.

        > Masato... do you speak officially for Softbank/JTA? You are emailing from your work account.

        YES. On the apnic-talk and in AMM, I am speaking as a delegate from SoftBank BB which is one of APNIC members,
        except when I mentioned different affiliate specifically (I have not yet do so in this thread).

        JFYI, in Policy SIG, I'm speaking as Co-chair except when I mentioned different affiliate specifically
        (I didn't do so after being elected as co-chair, I believe).
        My company doesn't allow employees to access personal email accounts from company office
        while I have a permission to do co-chair's task as a part of my job.
        So, I need to use my working email address even in Policy SIG to follow and response in real time manner.

        Masato Yamanishi

        On 14/03/20 23:20, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com> wrote:


        Whatever the report may be from the EC about costs relating to IG - What position are you in you judge/comment on those resources that are being used?  Do either of you manage the finances for a large organisation?

        I am not saying the investment is too much, or too little... I am simply trying to understand what you two hope to accomplish with your attacks on APNIC?

        I have no problems with the information, and I too am interested to know, but I am suspicious of your motives, which you've not explained here.

        Currently we have the Chair and the Co-Chair of the Policy SIG demanding information from the APNIC EC, with no stated objective.  I am not sure how either of you see your positions as tenable with the hostile position you are taking.

        I do not believe you guys are in any position to judge either way whether the amount that has been spent is too little or too much...

        The questions is... who is capable of judging this?

        Paul Wilson and his team have put a lot of effort into IG over the past few years... with, from what I understand, not a lot of help from the other RIR's.  Is that fair? Absolutely not.  It certainly does seem that APNIC has done and paid for far more than its fair share of heavy lifting here...

        But, how do you put a price on the stability of the Internet and how it is governed?  Who are you to judge that whether 500k, 1m, 2m 5m is too much to have been spent in fighting the hard fight against the ITU and ensuring the future of one of the greatest inventions of our time?

        I also am interested in how much IG has cost us... but mainly from the perspective of being able to measure the effort that APNIC, and especially Paul has put into this fight.

        So far I have seen no one question Paul's motive, no one question the benefits or outcomes of the efforts APNIC has put into IG.  All I see at the moment is people wanting to know how much it has cost the community.

        Again, I ask you Andy and Masato - what are your motives?

        Andy... you make a supposition about why shouldn't you move your membership to RIPE as a cost savings.  You directly stated that your organisation had a surplus of $18million last year, but that paying an extra $6k would be a problem.  I think you and your organisation should be ashamed of themselves.  An organisation that I am sure has benefited massively from the Internet and the resources it has had.  If you are concerned about the funding and financial position of APNIC, perhaps you should contribute accordingly. Andy - do you officially speak for the Victoria University of Wellington as a whole?

        Masato... do you speak officially for Softbank/JTA? You are emailing from your work account.

        I do not question or deny your rights to ask the questions you are asking, but the manner and hostile way you are asking them suggests something far more than you have let on to everyone else on this list.

        My motives for my position are clear and simple.  I want to see a stable Internet, governed according to the principals that it was founded on. As a member and someone who represents multiple members, I also am more than fine with the finances of APNIC being used to fight this battle.  Ideally, I would like to see the other RIR's chipping in a proportionate amount of effort/time/money as well... and if they are not, perhaps compensating APNIC for doing so.

        But I do very much believe that Paul and APNIC have abundant experience in the area of Internet Governance and have the passion to fight to protect it. Some battles are worth fighting for - and this is one of them.  Some people care about tomorrow and can see what will happen if the wrong path is taken.  Some just care about themselves and how things affect them today.

        I also challenge the EC to either support the DG and position he has taken - or don't... but either way, it should be publicly.  But if you don't support him, you have other issues you need to be sorting out.


        Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
        The Experts Who The Experts Call
        Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering

        On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
        Dear EC members,

        I second Andy's request and would like to ask EC members to investigate and share it with APNIC members as soon as possible.

        Thank you in advance.

        Masato Yamanishi

        On 14/03/19 17:58, "Andy Linton" <asjl at lpnz dot org> wrote:

        On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Tony Smith <tony at apnic dot net> wrote:
        > Hi Andy,
        > There is no specific cost centre of "Internet governance activities" in
        > APNIC. However, Paul provided a list of the activities which may be
        > related to Internet governance - I have listed those below this message.
        > The budget for the Secretariat is developed in consultation with the APNIC
        > EC each year, and approved by the EC before being presented to members.
        > The EC are regularly updated throughout the year on the current budget
        > status, including expenditure and income, to ensure they are fully
        > informed.

        So the answer here is either "we have no idea how much this all costs" or "we have an idea and we don't want to tell you" or "we have such a wide remit from the EC, we don't care".

        In the AMM meeting, the APNIC Treasurer said:

        >>James Spenceley:  One of the things we can do is certainly understand the extent of our investment in this.  We can work with finance on that.  In terms of creating a moratorium, I think that is possibly one step too far, but as treasurer I would like to understand exactly the investment we are making in this space and the materiality of that and continue on discussing it.

        and then later in the discussion:

        >>Andy Linton:  James, you said the moratorium is a step too far, and perhaps you are right.  But perhaps one of the  things that could be done here, if we are going to talk to membership, would be to say, as part of the accounts would be to break out the true cost of doing the Internet governance activities and also try and provide some real measurement of the real benefits it brings to this community.  I am not convinced, and I am sensing a number of other people are not convinced, that the amount of resource we spend on it actually brings us the benefits that we claim or are claimed for it. Thank you.

        >>James Spenceley:  I take that on board.

        So I'm going to ask again - can we see the numbers? Are we talking $500,000, $1m, $2m?

        Even a low estimate would be good. Over the last twelve months, take a look at:

        e.g. Paul, Pablo and Adam's travel and accommodation
        A component for their salaries for the IG work
        The cost of back filling this time - if they're doing this IG work then other activities go by the board e.g. Sanjaya was recently promoted to Deputy DG
        The cost of external parties funded to do IG work

        _______________________________________________ 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