On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Skeeve Stevens <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Your opinion is small when it is just you... and Andy and even if it is 10
> more. There are 4000 members of APNIC... An opinion with a small group
> should NOT impact any operations or no matter what country we are in,
> anyone could do the same (and in the past have tried).
>
>
And yet we do precisely that to make address policy - the group that makes
those decisions works in that way - the vast majority of the members take
no part in the process. Note the definitions from the Tao of the IETF below:
Consensus Decision Making
- Consensus = “general agreement” taking into consideration comments on
the mailing list and at the meeting.
- Show of hands is a way of “broadly gauging opinion”
- Comments via Remote Participation are welcome
- Example definitions from Tao of IETF:
- a very large majority of those who care must agree
- strongly held objections must be debated until most people are
satisfied that these objections are wrong
I reckon anyone who's posting on this list cares in some way about the
future of the stewardship of Internet address space. They wouldn't be
posting if they weren't.
The key question here is to what degree does attendance at a sequence of so
called Internet Governance meetings actually benefit current and future
holders of address space or is it simply something that creates the
illusion of activity when most of the work that the RIRs were set up to do
has been completed i.e. an orderly rollout of the IPv4 address space.
Because, to be blunt... I don't care what it is that the vocal extreme
>> minority (a couple of people) have to say about anything if it is not
>> backed up by the will of the membership body.... no matter how valid or
>> reasonable that position is. It is called a democracy.
>>
>> Actually it's not a democracy - it's a membership organisation where
different groups have different voting power.
> If you don't trust them, replace them... but do NOT expect any action from
> an announcement at a AMM.
>
And yet the EC put up a slide at that meeting saying:
Member Engagement
- The EC welcomes comments, suggestions and questions from members,
stakeholders and all others with an interest in APNIC’s functions and
operations
- We strive to improve the ways in which we:
- Understand and respond to the needs of our members
- Work efficiently and effectively in our core functions of
responsible address administration and accurate registry management
- Engage with the broader Internet Governance forums to ensure that
Asia Pacific voices are an integral part of the process
- Deliver value to our members and clients
And you say that if we want them to listen to our views we need to stage a
take over of the EC?
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
