Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress

    • To: "'Naresh Ajwani'" <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>, "'Skeeve Stevens'" <skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com>
    • Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress
    • From: "B C Jain " <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in>
    • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:33:05 +0530
    • Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
    • Delivered-to: apnic-talk at mailman dot apnic dot net
    • In-reply-to: <CAPUFQLotUBY-SgT6VNXB-1ophQSH+FnFSAYJ2EhgC05O2yLVxg at mail dot gmail dot com>
    • List-archive: <>
    • List-help: <>
    • List-id: General discussions on APNIC <>
    • List-post: <>
    • List-subscribe: <>, <>
    • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
    • References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
      • Dear Skeeve,


        For b) I Âwanted to know APNIC position being taken. Do you feel that Security is not part of Internet deliberations.

        Whole Netmundial has arisen out of Security and snooping. EC does not seem to be coming out with very transparent process.

        I hope there is consensus in EC about the view taken by APNIC even if transparently not sharable to the members.Â


        I still am looking for EC view. You may give your view on this.


        On c) Please tell me the basis of present charge why 190%. NIRs also need to extend services to its members and payment to APNIC is the major expense.


        This point was very well discussed in AMM and EC acknowledged the same and agreed to look at the same.


        With regards


        Brajesh Jain


        From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com]
        Sent: 23 March 2014 19:58
        To: Skeeve Stevens
        Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net; Brajesh jain
        Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress


        Dear Skeve,

        While Brajesh reverts to u on both your queries over his queries vide points b) & c), I hope that u had read the Montevideo statement. For your convenience,  I am pasting the excerpt from wikipedia as under:

        " The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation was released on 7 October 2013 by the leaders of a number of organizations involved in coordinating the Internet's global technical infrastructure. The statement was signed by the heads of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, theInternet Society, and the five regional Internet address registries (African Network Information Center, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry, and RÃseaux IP EuropÃens Network Coordination Centre). In large part, the statement is seen as a response to the ongoing NSA surveillance scandal.

        The leaders made four main points:

        They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance....."

        Yet if u have query on point b) of Brajesh, it wud reinforce my question about the plan before signing it.

        I remember you raising  such questions when I was advocating for the reforms in Apnic election processes, I am glad that you are doing it again but such response shud be given by the signatory of the statement or EC whom even Brajesh had asked.


        Regards & best wishes

        Naresh Ajwani

        Brajesh Jain,

        I am interested how you see b) as APNIC's responsibility?

        Also, re c)  Why do you think the fees are too much?


        Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
        skeeve at eintellegonetworks dot com ;

        Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve ; ; blog:

        The Experts Who The Experts Call
        Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering

        Brajesh Jain,


        I am interested how you see b) as APNIC's responsibility?


        Also, re c)  Why do you think the fees are too much?




        Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd

        The Experts Who The Experts Call

        Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering


        On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:06 PM, B C Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in> wrote:

        Dear EC and all,

        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

        apnic-talk mailing list
        apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net


        apnic-talk mailing list
        apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net