Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

    • To: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
    • From: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
    • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:07:09 +0900
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <CF55BF7B.875A6%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
    • List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
    • List-help: <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
    • List-post: <mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
    • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
    • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:apnic-talk-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
    • References: <CF48EE5A.85B79%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <365C33CF-B77B-40CA-88B5-53746928444D@apnic.net> <5323ECC9.3030609@cis-india.org> <CF4CC73D.85D7D%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <201403191612.GIE89288.BNFN@nic.ad.jp> <CF50E9B7.86A67%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <532E33C6.9030508@nic.ad.jp> <CAPUFQLqsrgn2G3Oub9d-moYeFPwTioD7M_9woF7G6grsTzby5g@mail.gmail.com> <CF5468F5.8CAA%tony@apnic.net> <CF55BF7B.875A6%myamanis@japan-telecom.com>
      • 
        
        I did read your follow up post but just to share more information about
        what's happening here at ICANN Singapore with all of you -
        
        You can find out more details from the presentation and transcripts of
        the session below:
        
        IANA Accountability Transition
        http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-accountability
        
        It was emphasized that ICANN meetings  and ICANN community are not the
        only opportuniy or the community to discuss the IANA transition.
        
        They welcome discussions at other forums including those of the RIRs,
        which ofcourse includes APNIC. You can see this from P.17 of the slides,
        APNIC and APRICOT clearly listed.
        
        If there are issues process wise as Yamanishi-san has pointed out, it is
        also possible to submit comments directly to the ICANN as well at:
        
         ianatransition at icann dot org
         http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition
        
        This is not intended to stop discussions here ofcourse and I just want
        to share that there are ways to directly give feedbacks to the ICANN.
        
        
        Regards,
        Izumi@Singapore
        
        (2014/03/25 3:11), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
        > All,
        > 
        > John Curran, ARIN CEO, just shared next step on arin-ppml mailing list,
        > and let me share it as I could not find better source.
        > (Sorry, I don't have any intension to quote it)
        > 
        > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-March/028006.html
        > 
        > And, we need to reply feedback before "Mar 27th, 2014" which means this
        > THURSDAY!!
        > However, I have not yet understood what we need to give a feedback for.
        > Does somebody know it?
        > 
        > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process-14m
        > ar14-en.pdf
        > 
        > My first comment for this is "It's too urgent.  ICANN should not push other
        > internet orgs to do anything."
        > 
        > Rgs,
        > Masato Yamanishi
        > 
        > 
        > On 14/03/22 20:16, "Tony Smith" <tony at apnic dot net> wrote:
        > 
        >> Hi Naresh
        >>
        >> Sorry, to answer your earlier question about "plans" - the plan is something
        >> that APNIC, our community, and all interested Internet users worldwide have
        >> been prompted to contribute to as per the NTIA announcement (which asked ICANN
        >> to facilitate).
        >>
        >> Paul's email from Friday (available here:
        >> http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/iana-globalization-consultation-pr
        >> ocess) explained the next steps.
        >>
        >> Everyone - including the Secretariat! - is hoping to find out more at ICANN 49
        >> in Singapore.  We hope there will be discussion at the meeting on how this
        >> process is going to work and the community will have some input into the
        >> mechanics of the consultation process.  ICANN changed the program just today
        >> with an updated time for its discussion session - it is now at 10.30am SG time
        >> on Monday:
        >> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-globalization-advisory
        >>
        >> As Paul's email said, the APNIC EC is currently considering the best ways to
        >> facilitate discussions and capture input from the Asia Pacific community.  It
        >> would be great to hear your and other Members' views on how the APNIC
        >> community can contribute to this process.
        >>
        >> Kind regards
        >> Tony
        >>
        >> From: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
        >> Date: Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:19 am
        >> To: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp>
        >> Cc: "apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net" <apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
        >> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
        >>
        >> Maemura, hi
        >>
        >> Masato; Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor members as
        >>>> there was not enough time?
        >>>> Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says;
        >> Maemura; "I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to proceed these
        >> issues and signed them under the EC's authorization."
        >>
        >> Is it  part of any Munute of Meeting or mails and if in public domain?
        >>
        >> Transparency wud help more. I am still waiting for the plans if any, I had
        >> asked for in this thread mails
        >>
        >> Regards & best wishes
        >>
        >> Naresh Ajwani
        >>
        >> On 23 Mar 2014 06:37, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
        >>> Masato,
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> (2014/03/21 11:18), Masato Yamanishi wrote:
        >>>>> Maemura-san and EC members,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Thank you for sharing EC's view.
        >>>>> Let me quote your statement in slightly different order to make my
        >>>> comment.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>>> 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 complies with APNIC by-laws 30, so I don't see any problem from
        >>>>> procedure perspective.
        >>> Yes, as you see the wording in my message was in accordance with it.
        >>>
        >>>>> BUT,
        >>>>>
        >>>>>>> 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.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor members as
        >>>>> there was not enough time?
        >>>>> Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says;
        >>> I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to proceed these issues and
        >>> signed them under the EC's authorization.
        >>>
        >>> Akinori
        >>>>> 54. The main functions of the Director General are:
        >>>>>    a. to act as the chief executive officer of APNIC and the corporation;
        >>>>>    b. to have, subject to the provisions of these by-laws and to the
        >>>>> direction of the Executive Council, the responsibility for the general
        >>>>> management and control of the activities, functions and affairs of APNIC
        >>>>> and the corporation and shall perform all duties and have all powers which
        >>>>> are commonly incident to the office of chief executive or which are
        >>>>> delegated by the Executive Council;
        >>>>>    c. to execute all contracts, agreements and other instruments of the
        >>>>> corporation which are authorised including affixing the Seal of the
        >>>>> corporation;
        >>>>>    d. to appoint and have general supervision and direction of all of the
        >>>>> other staff and agents of APNIC and the corporation, including but not
        >>>>> limited to bookkeeping, accounting and treasury functions on behalf of the
        >>>>> Treasurer;
        >>>>>    e. to implement strategic policies, prepare plans for APNIC, and shall
        >>>>> coordinate its activities, functions and affairs;
        >>>>>    f. to report to the Executive Council and to put forward resolutions for
        >>>>> the consideration of the Executive Council;
        >>>>>    g. to take all the actions required to ensure the economic use of
        >>>>> APNIC's resources and shall be responsible to the Executive Council for
        >>>>> all the administrative and financial aspects of APNIC's activities;
        >>>>>    h. to act as the legal representative of APNIC and the corporation;
        >>>>>    i. to act as an ex-officio member of the Executive Council.
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Rgs,
        >>>>> Masato Yamanishi
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> On 14/03/19 0:12, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>>> Dear Masato, Pranesh and everyone,
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> I know this is very late response for your request for the EC to
        >>>>> clarify.
        >>>>>>> Apologies.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> At Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:41:35 -0700
        >>>>>>> In message <CF4CC73D.85D7D%myamanis at japan-telecom dot com
        >>>>> <mailto:CF4CC73D.85D7D%25myamanis 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.
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> Sincerely,
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> MAEMURA Akinori, my own hat on, but I am sure the EC well sheres these
        >>>>>>> points
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>>
        >>>>>>> | 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 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283>  | W:
        >>>>> http://cis-india.org
        >>>>>>> | >-------------------
        >>>>>>> | >Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law
        >>>>>>> School
        >>>>>>> | >M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147>  | W:
        >>>>> http://yaleisp.org
        >>>>>>> | >PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
        >>>>>>> | >
        >>>>>>> |
        >>>>>>> |
        >>>>>>> | _______________________________________________
        >>>>>>> | apnic-talk mailing list
        >>>>>>> | apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >>>>>>> | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >>>>>>> |
        >>>>>
        >>>
        >>> _______________________________________________
        >>> apnic-talk mailing list
        >>> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >> _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list
        >> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > _______________________________________________
        > apnic-talk mailing list
        > apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
        > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
        >