Skeeve, Let me suggest you to read APNIC by-laws, in particular 30(a).
30. The main functions of the Executive Council are: 1. to act on behalf of the Members in the interval between AGMs within the limits of the powers delegated to it by the Members; Rgs, Masato Yamanishi On 14/03/18 7:37, "Skeeve Stevens" <[email protected]> wrote: > Responses below. > > ...Skeeve > > Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/> > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; > <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve > <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> > > twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: > www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Masato Yamanishi > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Skeeve, >> >> >> On 14/03/14 19:13, "Skeeve Stevens" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I know I am a little late to the party on this, and I wasn't present at the >>> meeting. But I have reviewed the video and I am extremely surprised by what >>> I have heard. >>> >>> Firstly, I have absolutely no doubt that the APNIC management and EC have >>> the absolute interests of the region, and by assoiation, the global >>> community at heart. >>> >>> Internet Governance is a critical issue which if not handled correctly and >>> sensitively, could have a catastrophic effect on the Internet as we know it. >>> There are many parties who have different goals and agendas which go against >>> the grain of the philosophy on which the Internet itself was founded. >>> >>> For Masato Yamanishi and Andy Linton to suggest that APNIC bow out of >>> involvement in the process of being involved in, influencing and steering >>> the global community on Internet Governance is completely ludicrous. >> >> No, I'm not suggesting such thing. >> What I'm saying is that we need to carefully consider how APNIC involve in IG >> discussion as RIR, > > > Why? We have just as much right to comment as anyone else. IG is exactly the > sort of thing APNIC should be involved in. > > >> (I think involving in all discussion is not appropriate way as RIR) > > Your opinion as a member, and this is mine - as a member. > >> and we also need to consider how much resources we can use for IG in >> effective manner, > > No, you do not have to. We have an EC and a CEO for that purpose. > > The shareholders of a big telco, do NOT have a comment on day-to-day > operations. They may choose the board... but we can do that too. > >> and such consideration should be done by bottom-up process. > > I do not believe everything needs bottom up support. We do not tell APNIC > what paper or pens to buy... and if Paul and the EC think something is > important, I trust them enough to let them be involved in it. > >> But, current approach is totally different. > > Yes, and should be. > >> >>> >>> While I will concede that APNIC is a registry whose job is to manage >>> resources, the experience in managing those resources, especially at this >>> time of critical shortage of some of those resources - as well as being the >>> biggest region on the globe - gives it absolute credibility to take part in >>> this debate. >>> >>> For Andy Linton to suggest that the APNIC Management and EC "not actually >>> consulted with who this really matters to" is absolutely crap and >>> inflammatory. These AMM's, the Surveys and the numerous other avenues for >>> people to provide their opinions and feelings about particular topics are >>> well knows - but minimally used. >> >> So, we provided our opinion in AMM in this time. What is a problem? >> >>> Just as Andy Linton and Masato are free to get up at the AMM and speak >>> about how they feel, so is anyone else. >> >> 1. From the transcript, you can see Rajesh and Brajesh also state their >> comments >> 2. From the transcript of Wed session (pp89-90), you can see Dmitry Burkov's >> comment. >> 3. I got applause multiple times during my statement > > So? > >> 4. I heard same concern from multiple people before and after the session. >> (Unfortunately, they have enough reason they cannot speak up in public, >> but some of them call the Wed session as "Bullshit" (sorry!!) > > So? They should stand up an make comment. And if not.. then fill out the > member survey. > >> >>> There is little or no barrier to being able to be a part of this debate. >>> The size of your membership is not relevant in any debate and the biggest >>> members and the smallest are equal. >> >> I never mentioned the size of my membership. I just said, I am a APNIC >> member. > > I was not referring to you. >>> >>> >>> This was typified by the response to James question to the room in which >>> no-one responded. The comment that 'we need to give people time to think >>> about it before springing it on them' is exactly the point that backed up >>> James's suggestion of including questions in the AMM and being willing to >>> work with those concerned about how those questions should be asked. >>> >>> James's suggestion for including the issue in the Members Surveys was the >>> best approach to get the feeling of the whole membership. Masato then >>> complained about how long that takes... I agree... but there is no other >>> choice in trying to gather the opinion of the membership. >> >> So, I don't argue about the survey after AMM. >> Also, some of EC members suggest to raise this issue on this list in addition >> to the survey, that's why I did so. >>> Masato pointed out something I had mentioned a number of times in that '80% >>> of people aren't even hearing this discussion', and he is right... because >>> they just don't care, or aren't interested in being involved. Getting >>> membership involvement is a very hard thing to do. The number of people who >>> are particularly passionate about the IG subject is very small. His point >>> about people responding to IG questions in the survey being minimal, I fully >>> agree with.... >>> >>> But... that people don't want to get involved, or have an opinion, doesn't >>> matter. There are people who DO care enough to be involved in the EC, >>> Management, BoF's, AMM's, etc... who ARE taking an active role in what they >>> determine to be of the greatest impact to the community as a whole - and >>> they go forward and represent that. >> >> it DOES matter, since APNIC doesn't have indefinite resources. > > No, but it DOES have management of those resources in which it does have. > >>> I was most offended by Andy Linton's comments which said: >>> >>> "I think there is a huge arrogance that we take the votes or opinions of >>> 4000 members of APNIC and say that this gives this organisation a mandate to >>> speak on behalf of the people of the Asia Pacific region which is more than >>> half the words population and say 'we are the ones who know how to do >>> everything governance related'" >>> >>> I'm not offended by the actual statement itself, but in combination with >>> Masato's comment it is hypocritical to say that the opinions of 4000 members >>> should not be good enough for a mandate of APNICs role in the region, but >>> that the opinions of 2-3 vocal people at the AMM should be what directs >>> APNIC policy and that we shouldn't wait around for the results of a members >>> survey (or whatever form). >> >> In which my comment are you combining? You are creating new comment which is >> totally different from our intension. > > 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). > >>> 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. >>> >>> In the absence of a VERY clear membership position on a topic, the EC are >>> who set the focus for APNIC and what it is involved in. >>> >>> Andy and Masato - if YOU think that the EC are not doing a good enough job, >>> then YOU run for EC... but I didn't see your names on the election ballot. >> >> Of course not, since we just speak up our concern and ask EC members to >> resolve it. > > And their suggestion was adding questions to the survey.... which in my > opinion is perfectly acceptable. If people care, they will answer. If they > do not make the effort, it means they do not care much. > >> And EC members said they want to know more details. That is current >> situation, and why do we need to run for EC? >> (or you run for city council whenever find a pothole on the road? Maybe you >> do so, but I don't) > > Because you/we have elected them. If you disagree with their management, let > the community elect you to the role. If not, you let them decide what is > important. > > >>> You guys are absolutely free to have your say, and continue to do so as >>> noisy as you like... I fully believe in the statement of 'I might not like >>> what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it'. >>> >>> BUT if your positions are not backed up by significant community (not just >>> noisy) support, then accept that the EC will do what they think is best... >>> Let them do their jobs... and if you don't think they are doing that to the >>> best interests of the community, then run for EC and see if the community >>> supports you in this endeavour. >> >> Thank you for your advise. >> >>> >>> On the topic of resources... people know that in the past I have asked hard >>> questions about the costs of travel of APNIC staff and how many need to be >>> in business class - something that was addressed and also rationalised. But >>> we can always do more rationalisation of costs... but cost savings should >>> never more important than the future of the way the Internet works. >> >> Agree. But current outcome is very unclear. >> >>> >>> That said... accountability and understanding of the costs involved are >>> absolutely important, and the requests for reporting, simplification of >>> buzzwords, are mandatory for the community to have the information they need >>> to know that the EC/Management is doing the right thing. >> >> Agree. >> >>> >>> My final statement regarding APNICs involvement in Internet Governance is >>> that it is absolutely critical for the future integrity and stability of the >>> Internet. I would like to know the resources being expended, and as long as >>> people are being conservative with the costs involved, I am happy with the >>> level of involvement, and if appropriate, an increased involvement. Paul >>> and the EC has my full appreciation for his passion and dedication for IG >>> and the long term viability of APNIC. >> >> Trusting somebody is different from blind faith. > > If you don't trust them, replace them... but do NOT expect any action from an > announcement at a AMM. > > >> >> Rgs, >> Masato Yamanishi >> >>> >>> >>> ...Skeeve >>> >>> Skeeve Stevens - eintellego Networks Pty Ltd >>> [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com >>> <http://www.eintellegonetworks.com/> >>> >>> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >>> >>> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks <http://facebook.com/eintellegonetworks> ; >>> <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve >>> <http://linkedin.com/in/skeeve> >>> >>> twitter.com/theispguy <http://twitter.com/theispguy> ; blog: >>> www.theispguy.com <http://www.theispguy.com/> >>> >>> >>> The Experts Who The Experts Call >>> Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering >>> _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list >>> [email protected]http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-ta >>> lk >
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
