Yamanishi san, I agree and understand this outside problem. We can deliberate upon the process to check such outside pressures in future.
Regards & best wishes Naresh Ajwani On 26 Mar 2014 08:00, "Masato Yamanishi" <[email protected]> wrote: > Naresh, > > I don't think it was intended by any EC members nor DG. > Rather, it was forced from outside, so it is a problem. > > Rgs, > Masato Yamanishi > > > > On 14/03/24 20:15, "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Masato, Hi, > > "I think real issue in Monte Video statement is somebody (I guess ICANN) > forced other internet bodies > to sign it urgently without allowing enough consultation time with > communities of each organizations." > > What can be the reason? Is it because majority of EC's sovereign's > position is contrary? > > Regards & best wishes > > Naresh Ajwani > On 24 Mar 2014 23:55, "Masato Yamanishi" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> All, >> >> I think real issue in Monte Video statement is somebody (I guess ICANN) >> forced other internet bodies >> to sign it urgently without allowing enough consultation time with >> communities of each organizations. >> >> And, as I wrote in previous e-mail, similar situation is going again. >> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2014/03/msg00054.html >> >> I have big concern since it may break the multi-stake holder model. >> >> Rgs, >> Masato Yamanishi >> >> >> >> On 14/03/23 7:20, "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Maemura for your response; >> >> ".... it was signed off by Paul after the EC authorized, which itself was >> not recorded, and the EC afterward ratified the support and announced >> it...." >> >> Yes EC had ratified it after more than 3 & 1/2 months of signing it. >> >> " I understand your point. It might need some improved procedure of ours >> to have increased transparency." >> >> Appreciate your response. I think the same is being advocated by others >> participating in this thread mail. Transparency is a must as the >> concerns/issues are obvious and yes, mistakes can happen. >> >> Regards & best wishes >> >> Naresh Ajwani >> On 23 Mar 2014 08:12, "MAEMURA Akinori" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Naresh, >>> >>> They are usually over conversations on the EC's mailing-list, and not >>> yet been really recorded for the sake of disclosure. >>> >>> We have an electronic voting process to make decision between quarterly >>> EC meetings, but I haven't thought it really suitable for these. With that >>> though, in case of Montevideo Statement, it was signed off by Paul after >>> the EC authorized, which itself was not recorded, and the EC afterward >>> ratified the support and announced it. >>> >>> I understand your point. It might need some improved procedure of ours >>> to have increased transparency. >>> >>> Best, >>> Akinori >>> >>> >>> (2014/03/23 11:19), Naresh Ajwani wrote: >>> > >>> > 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] <mailto: >>> [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] <mailto: >>> [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] <mailto: >>> [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]<mailto: >>> [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] <mailto:[email protected] >>> > >>> > >> | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >>> > >> | >>> > > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > apnic-talk mailing list >>> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >>> > >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
