Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
Dear Acharya,
At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:49:14 +0530
In message <CAEEwkf7UvV=eST5ukkZGVBkG8ffsX6KUHX7eyzKkgzoiDcs5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
"Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update"
"Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com>" wrote:
|
|
| I hope you agree that the APNIC Staff Proposal was not discussed at all on
| this mailing list (except the post by Mr Wilson informing us about the
| existence of the proposal). Given that the mailing list was created for the
| sole purpose of discussing the proposal, the absence of any discussion on
| the mailing list suggests that something went wrong. Or does no discussion
| (even a +1) mean consensus on the mailing list as well?
|
Reality is that :
Paul Wilson informed of the Secretariat Proposal on September 8,
The session in Brisbane was held on September 17.
We had one message following the original.
But I agree that there was no support/objection/discussion
on this on the ML until the session.
| Obviously not everyone can physically attend the APNIC conference. Even if
| you may argue consensus was reached at the conference, I doubt you can
| suggest consensus was reached on the mailing list.
|
| I am not pointing fingers. I was just hopeful of seeing a more vibrant
| discussion.
|
For sure, for those who cannot attend in person,
APNIC provides remote participation means.
| Maybe you could start another thread on this mailing list explaining the
| proposal in detail and inviting comments from the list members.
|
| Please take this as a constructive suggestion.
|
That's a good suggestion, indeed.
I am not sure what region or country you reside, I would
like to mention Asia Pacific region has the tendency that
people are quiet in discussion. I know this through my
15 year experience in APNIC forum.
I understand and agree that it should have been much better
if we successfully had had active on-the-list discussion
>from the peoople in region. It is a shame, indeed.
BTW, do you have any comment or input for the substance of
the proposal? If you have any, I'd love to know.
Best,
Akinori
|
|
| On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Masato Yamanishi <
| myamanis@japan-telecom.com> wrote:
|
| > Guru,
| > Firstly, I cannot copy and paste the transcript from some reason, let me
| > refer videos of each session instead of copying the transcript.
| >
| > See inline my comment.
| >
| > Oct 15, 2014 9:44 AM、Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> のメッセージ:
| >
| > Hi,
| >
| > This list (IANAxfer) created by APNIC to discuss the number community's
| > response to the ICG RFP has been absolutely silent for almost a month. I am
| > curious to know the current status of the process in the numbers community;
| > and if an alternate medium/list is now being used to discuss the transition.
| >
| > I'm also curious to know whether the APNIC staff proposal presented during
| > APNIC-38 has been accepted as the final proposal?
| >
| >
| > As I mentinoed in AMM, this draft proposal was accepted by APNIC community
| > as starting point of further discussion, not the final proposal. Then we
| > will continue the discussion on this list until Nov.
| > (See around 29:00 in AMM session 3 video
| > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KHOi7C-x8)
| >
| > I gather from the transcripts that the APNIC staff proposal was met with
| > silence during the conference - and that this silence was taken to be as
| > full consensus.
| >
| >
| > We discussed it for 38.5mins (you can see it from 35:30 to 1:14:00 in the
| > video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg2Kp6SRhQQ ), so I cannot
| > understand why you call it "met with silence".
| > Rather, we, APNIC community, had active and health discussion, and as a
| > moderator, I am confident we could reach to enough level of consensus in
| > APNIC community.
| > Also, when I asked community views about second principle in draft
| > proposal, Dean said very useful comment, so you cannot call it silence in
| > that meaning too. (See at 1:15:00 in same video)
| > Certainly, I didn't ask the consensus by show of hands nor voting, but
| > this proposal is NOT a policy proposal for our number resources, so we have
| > multiple ways to ask community's view, and I am also sure that the way I
| > asked the consensus is fully accepted in APNIC community.
| >
| > Regards,
| > Masato Yamanishi
| >
| >
| > conference.apnic.net/data/38/20140917-1100-IANA-Stewardship-Transition.txt
| >
| > Further, how will the proposal be coordinated amongst the 5 RIRs at the
| > NRO level?
| >
| > Thanks,
| > Acharya
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > IANAxfer mailing list
| > IANAxfer@apnic.net
| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
| >
| >
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| IANAxfer mailing list
| IANAxfer@apnic.net
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
|
|
|