Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
Actually there were far more than only one message following Paul Wilson's
message, see:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2014/09/
My comments on the substance of the proposal are at:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2014/09/msg00003.h
tml
Best,
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ianaxfer-bounces@apnic.net
> [mailto:ianaxfer-bounces@apnic.net]On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
> Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 02:27
> To: gurcharya@gmail.com; myamanis@japan-telecom.com
> Cc: mueller@syr.edu; IANAxfer@apnic.net
> Subject: 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
> |
> |
> |
> _______________________________________________
> IANAxfer mailing list
> IANAxfer@apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
>