Brajesh Jain, I am interested how you see b) as APNIC's responsibility?
Also, re c) Why do you think the fees are too much? ...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 Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:06 PM, B C Jain <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear EC and all, > > I thank Mr Maemura for taking time to respond on behalf of EC. As expressed > by him towards the end > that these are his views but EC broadly shares the same. Hope EC agrees > with > these views. > > I also raised this in AMM at Petaling Jaya. I request EC/Secretariat to > elaborate on the below points > > a) APNIC delegation stand on various issues at the forthcoming meetings. > And > the basis of arriving at the same. > Hope in clear language. > > b) Specifically, what are the views APNIC delegation would take on Security > risk and snooping issues. Basically most appropriate solution is that > content considered objectionable by a Sovereign should be removed at the > source wherever it is hosted. And how this would be achieved by > Multistakeholder approach. > > c) Also I request EC to consider reduction of IP charges from NIRs. And > very > strongly support that there is need for increased effort as a mission by > APNIC to increase IPv6 usage. > > With regards > > Brajesh Jain > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori > Sent: 19 March 2014 12:42 > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress > > Dear Masato, Pranesh and everyone, > > I know this is very late response for your request for the EC to clarify. > Apologies. > > At Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:41:35 -0700 > In message <cf4cc73d.85d7d%[email protected]> > "Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress" > "Masato Yamanishi <[email protected]>" wrote: > > | Pranesh and All, > | > | While I'm not new to APNIC, I have same question/concern. > | Can EC clarify it? > | > > Montevideo Statement was crafted among the I* CEOs in the situation, as > Tony > has already told, with very limited time allowance with very quick moves at > that time, and so was the I*'s reaction to NTIA statement. > > Technically speaking on the basis of our governing provisions, the > Executive > Council has function to act on behalf of the Members in the interval > between > AGMs, and to manage the activities, functions and affairs of APNIC. > > More practically, the EC represents the Membership to manage APNIC's > activity, and need to comply the will of the Membership, sometimes with the > broader community. > > We have the power to authorise the activity by DG and Secretariat for the > Membership, but need to synchronise our thought on the authorization with > the Membership. > > That is why we set a timeslot to discuss the Internet Governance issue in > the AMM this time, after we announced our support for Montevideo Statement > in January. > > It was great to see very active discussion there, and that it triggered the > continued discussion on line. > > > As Masato points out, now Paul is more engaged in the activity of > coordination among our fellow organizations and ITU arena, which is based > on > the EC's authorization. We authorize becuase we think it needed. > > I understand it looks like politics game with little thing, if not nothing, > to do with Members' own business. > > However from the viewpoint of a company whose business is serving community > with Internet Resource, one of which is APNIC, it is really important to > address the risk of unwanted non-viable arrangement and to have people with > other stakes understand our position. > > Moreover, as already mentioned, the forthcoming couple of years are quite > crucial stage for us to keep our healthy business environment. > > That's why we authorize these activities by Secretariat, and what we need > to > have you understand. > > As we have many things to come, Director General and the EC will have more > communication each other to consider these actions, than we have already > been doing. > > > > I know, through my own business, that how Internet Governance issues are > difficult for people (e.g. of tech community) to realize, I am still on > the > way to find how I can couple the issue we confront adequately with > community's interest. > > The EC needs to have the Membership's support with well-informed consent, > and of course we need to change our thought just in case we found it was > not > of the Membership and community, and I hope the current discussion will > valuable for the purpose. > > > Sincerely, > > MAEMURA Akinori, my own hat on, but I am sure the EC well sheres these > points > > > > | Rgs, > | Masato Yamanishi > | > | > | > | On 14/03/14 23:01, "Pranesh Prakash" <[email protected]> wrote: > | > | >Tony Smith [2014-03-14 21:42]: > | >> As I'm sure you appreciate, the news from the US has just arrived this > | >>morning and a lot of the details are still coming to light. We're > | >>planning to prepare something that explains what this development means > | >>in more detail when more information is confirmed. > | > > | >I'm sorry, but I'm new to APNIC's lists. > | > > | >Was there any consultation within APNIC before APNIC's leader's name was > | >added to this statement? Could you also point me towards the community > | >consultation / mailing list discussions that took place before the > | >Montevideo Declaration was signed as something APNIC endorsed? > | > > | >> But for now, we wanted to alert everyone to this news and the fact > | >>consultation will begin in our region in Singapore. > | > > | >Could you outline the intra-APNIC consultations (i.e., not the ICANN > | >consultations about which ICANN's published a document) that will take > | >place with regard to this? Which mailing list will these discussions be > | >directed towards? > | > > | >-- > | >Pranesh Prakash > | >Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society > | >T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org > | >------------------- > | >Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School > | >M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org > | >PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash > | > > | > | > | _______________________________________________ > | 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
