Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
As I wrote in last e-mail to Maemura-san and others,
I have a concern for the process itself and would like to ask EC to claim
it to ICANN.
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2014/03/msg00059.
html
>>EC members>
>>I believe you are preparing some input as APNIC community for this
>>proposed process,
>>I would like to ask you claiming that each internet bodies should have
>>more flexibility during this process, in particular time constrain, and
>>ICANN should respect such flexibility of each internet bodies.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
On 14/03/25 18:07, "Izumi Okutani" <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
>Yamanishi-san and all,
>
>
>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-consultat
>>>ion-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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>apnic-talk mailing list
>apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk