Dear Skeve, While Brajesh reverts to u on both your queries over his queries vide points b) & c), I hope that u had read the Montevideo statement. For your convenience, I am pasting the excerpt from wikipedia as under:
" The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation was released on 7 October 2013 by the leaders of a number of organizations involved in coordinating the Internet's global technical infrastructure. The statement was signed by the heads of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Architecture Board, the World Wide Web Consortium, theInternet Society, and the five regional Internet address registries (African Network Information Center, American Registry for Internet Numbers, Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre, Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry, and Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre). In large part, the statement is seen as a response to the ongoing NSA surveillance scandal. The leaders made four main points: They reinforced the importance of globally coherent Internet operations, and warned against Internet fragmentation at a national level. They expressed strong concern over the undermining of the trust and confidence of Internet users globally due to recent revelations of pervasive monitoring and surveillance....." Yet if u have query on point b) of Brajesh, it wud reinforce my question about the plan before signing it. I remember you raising such questions when I was advocating for the reforms in Apnic election processes, I am glad that you are doing it again but such response shud be given by the signatory of the statement or EC whom even Brajesh had asked. Regards & best wishes Naresh Ajwani 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 ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering 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
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
