Richard, On 2014/10/17 1:05, "Richard Hill" <rhill@hill-a.ch> wrote:
I’m afraid you underestimate APNIC community members.
It sounds you assume that RIR staffs are leaders of number communities (You also mentioned in different thread that if the proposal was made by staffs it is top-down), but that assumption is not correct in many operational communities, at least in APNIC community. In APNIC, the leader is APNIC EC since they are elected from the community. And, APNIC staff is not a leader of the community, rather they are asked to serve for the APNIC community. (like attorneys in the court. Oops, of course US attorneys are little bit different….) So, it is acceptable that APNIC staffs represent our community if their comments are well aligned with the community’s views. (If well aligned, they are expected to do so actually)
No, you don’t need. As I proposed the charter, anyone is welcome, but expected to focus on the purpose of this list and respect cultural differences. As I said previously, outreach is not a purpose of this list. Of course, you can catch up what is going on in APNIC on this list, but it is “reaching to the APNIC community”, not “reaching out beyond the APNIC community” in my dictionary.
Regional discussion -> CRISP -> ICG. Also outcomes in each steps should be feedback to the APNIC community and will be discussed. Also, I cannot understand what you meant by “get their consensus for the APNIC transition plan”. Currently, we are discussing our proposal as number resources organization in AP region. It will be compiled with other communities’ proposal in CRISP and ICG. Then that compiled one will be final proposal and should be reached consensus among all stakeholders. We are not claiming that our proposal covers everything and names and protocols communities should follow our proposal. Regards, Masato
|