Randy Bush wrote:
I believe the problem here is that we appear to be trying to solve two problems with one proposal, and accomplishing neither.sure. could you please clarify the following? i could be confused, as usual, but i could not really understand if/how you responded directly to the following:my worry is that this proposal may be vulnerable to the attack (please excuse internet security geek terminology) that 42 people get into a room and vote, unanimously of course, that they are an nir.
Kusumba appears to be attempting to mitigate a situation where a government is a deciding factor in how an NIR is created. There appears to be a suggestion that said government may not represent the majority of either APNIC Members or even Internet users within a given country. With this in mind Kusumba has put forward a proposal to lessen the power that a government would have in the establishment of an NIR.
There is however an opposing view. The view that there may be some countries where a non-government entity establishes and NIR. If this is done with no government involvement, then it also possible that it will lack and credibility, respect or legitimacy from the wider community within that country.
As you can see we have two situations which are not being addressed by either current policy or proposal 60 as it stands. This is not surprising as we live in a region with a large number of different government systems.
I believe what is needed here is not to exclude governments from the NIR establishment process, but the formation of a set of checks and balances to guard against the sort of abuse of power which Kusumba seems to be suggesting exists in some markets. This would also minimise the possibility that a non-government entity could form an NIR with no legitimacy from the local community and government.
If there was no agreement between the local community and the government then the status quo (administration by APNIC) would remain. In essence the process remains failsafe.
All that remains to be done is to develop these checks and balances. I feel that moving forward along those lines will bring everyone to consensus rather than looking to exclude government involvement.
Regards Dean Pemberton