Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
- To: MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp>
- Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] AMM IG Discussion Comments
- From: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:08:52 +1300
- 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; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:dkim-signature:x-google-dkim-signature:x-gm-message-state: x-received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=P2WI8R5G2A7uvT0tYLA48nqKNag92w6e+WYnOK/r2ek=; b=G0K+onnZXEdB3bWUEk1lFnWIsIzIKUOUcZZall8/er1vBcX4iedTyMHvM3qLRTTVMFIwsk29m/+BN 7SWLxcJO6VakZ+sI/KR+ahRS9GqWYTnDVEhMTmmgSXAL5eP6u98KkhXcqjhBQSOPnON5YLdi84xEUi qPBCS5VlDkvx0LFc=
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lpnz.org; s=dkim; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=P2WI8R5G2A7uvT0tYLA48nqKNag92w6e+WYnOK/r2ek=; b=pdRmYvMaw8TOviWF3iNYosK4KbAVlMcQr7xz3ZSULFSkkXYRRkPtxUpTzkOpu5ewfd s/FZoqsSgzODTUiPk9GanyL/AdKFuku+4LESoQ86tP62+woJCFfOqkHdiKCpcP+aKEj0 SCIu8Rx843FI0iDLbjIAXgyjV08F3tEQlbRr8=
- In-reply-to: <5333C788.8070800 at nic dot ad dot jp>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: General discussions on APNIC <apnic-talk.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/apnic-talk>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM, MAEMURA Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> wrote:
I have understood at this stage that the community which includes you and active people on this mailing list has a certain level of concern on such spending, which the EC has regarded appropriate, and the EC is now under consideration how we can serve onto such concern.
We are working on.
Thanks for the response.Â
APNIC should be involved in *some* of the activities that people call 'Internet Governance'. I'm just not convinced that we should be involved in *all* of them.
I talked at length last week with John Earls as part of the survey work he's doing on member engagement. I'm quite content that that information will percolate back to the EC in due course and I hope that others do the same.
I'll point the recent post I made to this list "InternetNZ Blog post on Internet Governance" and suggest that the sooner APNIC gets to something like this the better.