What is your point Masato?
...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd [email protected] ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Masato Yamanishi < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: 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 >> >> Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> >> facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; <http://twitter.com/networkceoau> >> linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> >> twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: 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-talk >> >> >
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
