Okutani-san, As I wrote in last e-mail to Maemura-san and others, I have a concern for the process itself and would like to ask EC to claim it to ICANN.
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2014/03/msg00059. html >>EC members> >>I believe you are preparing some input as APNIC community for this >>proposed process, >>I would like to ask you claiming that each internet bodies should have >>more flexibility during this process, in particular time constrain, and >>ICANN should respect such flexibility of each internet bodies. Rgs, Masato Yamanishi On 14/03/25 18:07, "Izumi Okutani" <[email protected]> wrote: >Yamanishi-san and all, > > >I did read your follow up post but just to share more information about >what's happening here at ICANN Singapore with all of you - > >You can find out more details from the presentation and transcripts of >the session below: > >IANA Accountability Transition >http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-iana-accountability > >It was emphasized that ICANN meetings and ICANN community are not the >only opportuniy or the community to discuss the IANA transition. > >They welcome discussions at other forums including those of the RIRs, >which ofcourse includes APNIC. You can see this from P.17 of the slides, >APNIC and APRICOT clearly listed. > >If there are issues process wise as Yamanishi-san has pointed out, it is >also possible to submit comments directly to the ICANN as well at: > > [email protected] > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition > >This is not intended to stop discussions here ofcourse and I just want >to share that there are ways to directly give feedbacks to the ICANN. > > >Regards, >Izumi@Singapore > >(2014/03/25 3:11), Masato Yamanishi wrote: >> All, >> >> John Curran, ARIN CEO, just shared next step on arin-ppml mailing list, >> and let me share it as I could not find better source. >> (Sorry, I don't have any intension to quote it) >> >> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2014-March/028006.html >> >> And, we need to reply feedback before "Mar 27th, 2014" which means this >> THURSDAY!! >> However, I have not yet understood what we need to give a feedback for. >> Does somebody know it? >> >> >>http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/functions-transfer-process- >>14m >> ar14-en.pdf >> >> My first comment for this is "It's too urgent. ICANN should not push >>other >> internet orgs to do anything." >> >> Rgs, >> Masato Yamanishi >> >> >> On 14/03/22 20:16, "Tony Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Naresh >>> >>> Sorry, to answer your earlier question about "plans" - the plan is >>>something >>> that APNIC, our community, and all interested Internet users worldwide >>>have >>> been prompted to contribute to as per the NTIA announcement (which >>>asked ICANN >>> to facilitate). >>> >>> Paul's email from Friday (available here: >>> >>>http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/iana-globalization-consultat >>>ion-pr >>> ocess) explained the next steps. >>> >>> Everyone - including the Secretariat! - is hoping to find out more at >>>ICANN 49 >>> in Singapore. We hope there will be discussion at the meeting on how >>>this >>> process is going to work and the community will have some input into >>>the >>> mechanics of the consultation process. ICANN changed the program just >>>today >>> with an updated time for its discussion session - it is now at 10.30am >>>SG time >>> on Monday: >>> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-globalization-advisory >>> >>> As Paul's email said, the APNIC EC is currently considering the best >>>ways to >>> facilitate discussions and capture input from the Asia Pacific >>>community. It >>> would be great to hear your and other Members' views on how the APNIC >>> community can contribute to this process. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> Tony >>> >>> From: Naresh Ajwani <[email protected]> >>> Date: Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:19 am >>> To: MAEMURA Akinori <[email protected]> >>> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] IANA Globalization Progress >>> >>> Maemura, hi >>> >>> Masato; Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor >>>members as >>>>> there was not enough time? >>>>> Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says; >>> Maemura; "I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to proceed >>>these >>> issues and signed them under the EC's authorization." >>> >>> Is it part of any Munute of Meeting or mails and if in public domain? >>> >>> Transparency wud help more. I am still waiting for the plans if any, I >>>had >>> asked for in this thread mails >>> >>> Regards & best wishes >>> >>> Naresh Ajwani >>> >>> On 23 Mar 2014 06:37, "MAEMURA Akinori" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Masato, >>>> >>>> >>>> (2014/03/21 11:18), Masato Yamanishi wrote: >>>>>> Maemura-san and EC members, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for sharing EC's view. >>>>>> Let me quote your statement in slightly different order to make my >>>>> comment. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 complies with APNIC by-laws 30, so I don't see any problem from >>>>>> procedure perspective. >>>> Yes, as you see the wording in my message was in accordance with it. >>>> >>>>>> BUT, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean that DG had signed it before consulting EC nor members >>>>>>as >>>>>> there was not enough time? >>>>>> Does it comply with APNIC by-laws 54? It says; >>>> I am sure he has been in full touch with the EC to proceed these >>>>issues and >>>> signed them under the EC's authorization. >>>> >>>> Akinori >>>>>> 54. The main functions of the Director General are: >>>>>> a. to act as the chief executive officer of APNIC and the >>>>>>corporation; >>>>>> b. to have, subject to the provisions of these by-laws and to the >>>>>> direction of the Executive Council, the responsibility for the >>>>>>general >>>>>> management and control of the activities, functions and affairs of >>>>>>APNIC >>>>>> and the corporation and shall perform all duties and have all >>>>>>powers which >>>>>> are commonly incident to the office of chief executive or which are >>>>>> delegated by the Executive Council; >>>>>> c. to execute all contracts, agreements and other instruments of >>>>>>the >>>>>> corporation which are authorised including affixing the Seal of the >>>>>> corporation; >>>>>> d. to appoint and have general supervision and direction of all >>>>>>of the >>>>>> other staff and agents of APNIC and the corporation, including but >>>>>>not >>>>>> limited to bookkeeping, accounting and treasury functions on behalf >>>>>>of the >>>>>> Treasurer; >>>>>> e. to implement strategic policies, prepare plans for APNIC, and >>>>>>shall >>>>>> coordinate its activities, functions and affairs; >>>>>> f. to report to the Executive Council and to put forward >>>>>>resolutions for >>>>>> the consideration of the Executive Council; >>>>>> g. to take all the actions required to ensure the economic use of >>>>>> APNIC's resources and shall be responsible to the Executive Council >>>>>>for >>>>>> all the administrative and financial aspects of APNIC's activities; >>>>>> h. to act as the legal representative of APNIC and the >>>>>>corporation; >>>>>> i. to act as an ex-officio member of the Executive Council. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rgs, >>>>>> Masato Yamanishi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14/03/19 0:12, "MAEMURA Akinori" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>> <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91%2080%2040926283> | W: >>>>>> http://cis-india.org >>>>>>>> | >------------------- >>>>>>>> | >Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale >>>>>>>>Law >>>>>>>> School >>>>>>>> | >M: +1 520 314 7147 <tel:%2B1%20520%20314%207147> | 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 _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
