Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

To: Naresh Ajwani <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
From: Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:29:47 -0700
Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CAPUFQLobxGSrRt7kREgZ3YzM5Q6zOf9SAd8otU7kCCqZgGm47A@mail.gmail.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> <532E49EA.5080205@nic.ad.jp> <CAPUFQLqPN62U5Tyo89XqndhQ3j09+iAzY1o1n_BnZ9dtm_JNVA@mail.gmail.com> <CF55C3AE.875D0%myamanis@japan-telecom.com> <CAPUFQLobxGSrRt7kREgZ3YzM5Q6zOf9SAd8otU7kCCqZgGm47A@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-topic: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

Naresh,

I don't think it was intended by any EC members nor DG.

Rather, it was forced from outside, so it is a problem.

Rgs,

Masato Yamanishi

On 14/03/24 20:15, "Naresh Ajwani" <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com> wrote:

Masato, Hi,
"I think real issue in Monte Video statement is somebody (I guess ICANN) forced other internet bodies
to sign it urgently without allowing enough consultation time with communities of each organizations."
What can be the reason? Is it because majority of EC's sovereign's position is contrary?
Regards & best wishes
Naresh Ajwani
On 24 Mar 2014 23:55, "Masato Yamanishi" <myamanis at japan-telecom dot com> wrote:
All,

I think real issue in Monte Video statement is somebody (I guess ICANN) forced other internet bodies
to sign it urgently without allowing enough consultation time with communities of each organizations.

And, as I wrote in previous e-mail, similar situation is going again.
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2014/03/msg00054.html

I have big concern since it may break the multi-stake holder model.

Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi

On 14/03/23 7:20, "Naresh Ajwani" <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com> wrote:

Thanks Maemura for your response;
".... it was signed off by Paul after the EC authorized, which itself was not recorded, and the EC afterward ratified the support and announced it...."
Yes EC had ratified it after more than 3 & 1/2 months of signing it.
" I understand your point. It might need some improved procedure of ours to have increased transparency."
Appreciate your response. I think the same is being advocated by others participating in this thread mail. Transparency is a must as the concerns/issues are obvious and yes, mistakes can happen.
Regards & best wishes
Naresh Ajwani
On 23 Mar 2014 08:12, "MAEMURA Akinori" <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
Hi Naresh,

They are usually over conversations on the EC's mailing-list, and not yet been really recorded for the sake of disclosure.

We have an electronic voting process to make decision between quarterly EC meetings, but I haven't thought it really suitable for these. With that though, in case of Montevideo Statement, it was signed off by Paul after the EC authorized, which itself was not recorded, and the EC afterward ratified the support and announced it.

I understand your point. It might need some improved procedure of ours to have increased transparency.

Best,
Akinori

(2014/03/23 11:19), Naresh Ajwani wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>