Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
Masato,
You are correct the current plan is for each region to determine their
own initial process. The global process did become clearer yesterday
with the proposed crisp team.
Andrew
On 10/16/2014 11:19 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> I agree that the process is also important as the proposal itself, but
> each community can choose their own development process,
> and it should be respected if it complies with the requirements from USG.
> That is my point. Am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
> Masato Yamanishi
>
>
>
> On 2014/10/16 13:14, "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul@quark.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> You will note I only asked for clarification about how APNIC was
>> conducting its part of this process, I did not comment on the substance
>> of the proposal itself. (While I am not directly affiliated with an
>> organization in the apnic region today, I have been in the past and as
>> far as I know this list is open to all who want to participate.)
>>
>> While I believe we disagree on having the regional discussions rather
>> than just moving to a global discussion. I realize that is the
>> direction we are now headed.
>>
>> As was noted again in the ICG meeting today the timeline is short and
>> the sooner all the regions have their work, the sooner the global
>> submission to the ICG can be worked on. It was also noted today the
>> process for creating the submission is also just as important as the
>> submission itself.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 10/16/2014 11:38 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
>>> Hello Andrew,
>>>
>>> First, let’s note that the discussion is ongoing, in the APNIC region
>>> and elsewhere. With 3 more RIR meetings coming up soon, I am sure that
>>> the APNIC community will be watching what happens in those discussions.
>>>
>>> As specific proposals are raised in other meetings, I’m sure that we
>>> will be watching whether those are consistent with or inconsistent with
>>> the straw man that was discussed in Brisbane, and discussions will ensue
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> So the process is one of continuing discussion, and could include
>>> further proposals which could come from anyone in the community. APNIC
>>> secretariat staff will attempt to facilitate this discussion as needed.
>>>
>>> I should also note that the purpose of the ianaxfer@apnic list is for
>>> regional discussions, not for global discussions. So I hope that we
>>> will able to focus on the development of the APNIC position, rather than
>>> trying to capture all voices here, which could become rather
>>> overwhelming for those who are trying to track the APNIC discussion in
>>> particular.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC <dg@apnic.net>
>>> http://www.apnic.net +61 7 3858 3100
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2014, at 3:04 am, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul@quark.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/16/2014 9:35 AM, MAEMURA Akinori wrote:
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> (2014/10/17 0:38), Richard Hill wrote:
>>>>>> Please see below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks and best,
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: MAEMURA Akinori [mailto:maem@nic.ad.jp]
>>>>>>> Sent: mercredi, 15. octobre 2014 19:42
>>>>>>> To: gurcharya@gmail.com; rhill@hill-a.ch
>>>>>>> Cc: mueller@syr.edu; IANAxfer@apnic.net
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Acharya,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> | > I'm also curious to know whether the APNIC staff proposal
>>>>>>> presented during
>>>>>>> | > APNIC-38 has been accepted as the final proposal? 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Masato as the Moderator, at the last part of the session,
>>>>>>> took good care to study the sentiment of the floor,
>>>>>>> which doesn't appear on the script.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was sufficient time to wait for any last minute objection,
>>>>>>> and quite natural to be regarded as a consensus, in my sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "full consensus" sounds something hard, and might be not
>>>>>>> the case for this, but it is my understanding that we have
>>>>>>> obtained sufficient consensus for that simple proposal,
>>>>>>> with which we can move it forward.
>>>>>> Does this mean that that proposal has been approved? What about the
>>>>>> comments that wre made on this mailing, in particular:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2014/09/msg000
>>>>>> 03.html
>>>>> It doesn't mean the proposal was approved as the final version.
>>>>> But I think it is enough to move forward for further consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your message referred above is appreciated as raised an important
>>>>> point.
>>>>> Again, the discussion in Brisbane is in the early stage, I am happy we
>>>>> were successful to get the support for the simple principle with which
>>>>> we can go ahead, and many details are to be discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> As we don't have much time, we should expedite the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>> What process is APNIC going to follow? How will the comments both from
>>>> the in-person meeting and the mailing list be taken into account? Who
>>>> is going to update the draft to be inclusive of those comments? When
>>>> is
>>>> the next draft going to be published?
>>>>
>>>> Andrew
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>