Lu, You are quite clearly twisting my words to suit your own agenda. I'd strongly recommend you actually look at the products, services and features that NTT offers, look at what you offer, and then compare your services to that of NTT. LARUS and Cloud Innovation are not Internet Service Providers (ISPs), by the definition that they do not provide access to the internet to both personal and business customers. NTT is considered an ISP, as they provide internet services. Leasing IP resources and facilitating their sale is not providing an internet service. Businesses that have a bona fide interest in internet governance are more than welcome to participate in its governance and policy making and there are mechanisms for them to do so.
If your genuine interest was for an "internet that is for all" and had a legitimate interest in internet governance, why would you obtain a large portion of an RIR's IANA allocation, then seek an injunction against the RIR that threatens to tear up your agreement and recovering your resource holdings? Surely you would know that putting a RIR into liquidation would have significant repercussions on the way the internet is operated within that service region, thus causing a ripple effect for the millions that rely on their internet services... To think that I am "very interested in excluding all ISPs from APNIC governance", that I "don't want them to participate in the voting process" and that I am "advocating dictatorship" is simply delusional. I'm 100% in support of a free (as in freedom) internet and its governance, and by extension, its Regional Internet Registries. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:37 PM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev> Cc: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>; m.ch...@larus.net <m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms Hi Chris: Your logic simply makes no sense. All ISP's business depends on the IP address, NTT(or any national telecom) would depend all its data business on it's IPs(since no IP no internet) so you are saying because billions of dollar business are depends on those IPs, NTT can not participate in the governance or IP address policy? My interest is that the internet is for all, only when the internet is free, open, and accessible for all so my business, and every other ISP in this list's business, can strive and prosper. Just because good policy benefits everyone's bank account does not mean you should exclude everyone from decision making, the exact opposite is true, because everyone's business relies on a functional registry system, we are all stakeholders in this matter. And all of us should participate. Chris, you seem very interested in excluding all ISPs from APNIC governance as well as don't want them to participate in the voting process to make informed decisions, are you really advocating dictatorship here? On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 17:03, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev<mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote: Lu, No one is claiming that members of the APNIC service region are better than those in the rest of the world. It would make them ignorant to do so. One thing that I find rather interesting is that APNIC services one of the largest and most culturally and linguistically diverse regions in the world. APNIC services 56 different economies (ref: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/corporate/apnic-service-region/), provides training, development and technical experience to developing nations who may lack the technical resources to improve their access to the internet. The internet is for all. The internet is available for access to all, and there are organisations who help facilitate this access where there is a bona fide reason to. It would be a logistical nightmare for one central body to manage the global supply of IP resources, which is why IANA (as an extension of ICANN) delegated the responsibility to the 5 RIRs that provide these services. Upon doing some research, Cloud Innovation Ltd (being an entity which you control) holds the equivalent of 26,318 /24 IPv4 prefixes, all of which are delegated by AFRINIC. Based on sales data for IP resources from IPv4.Global, you (though Cloud Innovation Ltd) hold in excess of $284,348,883 USD worth of IP resources (based on an averaged IP price of $42.37 USD per-IP for sales that took place on the IPv4.Global platform in the 12 months prior to today). To be conservative and allow for market fluctuations, let's value the IP holdings at $240m USD. You cannot tell me that your interests in IP policy are for an "internet that is for all". It now makes sense why Cloud Innovation did what it did - because if AFRINIC terminated the agreement it had with Cloud Innovation and revoked all of its resource holdings, the value of the business would have been lost overnight. This in itself, is the definition of a "conflict of interest". I (as I cannot speak for others) am of the view that your sole interest in IP policy is financially incentivised. Any policy that prevents LARUS or Cloud Innovation from obtaining resources is a threat to your business model, and ultimately, your bank balance. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com<mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:22 PM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev<mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> Cc: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>; m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> <m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>; apnic-talk <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms Hi Aftab and Chris: Just listen to what your guys are saying here, the exact same argument in the past hundreds years fuels nationalism, separationism, and ultimately, wars. We (followed by a geographic region or ethnic group) are (better, capable, talented) compared to (rest of the world, other nations, etc). And this is exactly what me and my colleagues are fighting for here. A internet that is for all, should disregard race, ethnic, certainly locations of individuals, it was a mistake to have 5 RIR instead of one, it was mistake to concentrate all the powers to single individual for past 25 years, it was mistake to even start distinguish difference in race, ethnic, or location on the internet governance matters. We are all intelligent beings on internet, where you from, what race are you, where do you live, does not matter to serve in internet governance organization, APNIC is not a government, it should merely being a technical solution provider, and as a technical solution provider, it really does not matter where you come from. It's a principle so vital to the future of the internet, we must protect it not abandon it. On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 14:07, Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev<mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote: Aftab, I could not have said it better myself. This I believe can be attributed to the sheer amount of individuals who have committed decades to the development of the internet as we know it today, and not only demonstrated to the APNIC region but to the world, the value that some of these people bring to the EC. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com<mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM To: m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> <m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>> Cc: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev<mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>; apnic-talk <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms Hi Melvin, On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 07:00, Melvin Cheng <m.ch...@innovationservice.help> wrote: Hi Christopher, Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response to my viewpoint on APNIC's proposed bylaw reforms. I appreciate the chance to engage in this conversation and to clarify my opinions further. I understand your perspective on restricting EC memberships to active participants within the service region. While I respect your view, I continue to believe that a globally diverse EC could enrich APNIC's governance with varied perspectives and expertise, benefiting the entire community. It's crucial to acknowledge and embrace the potential of meritocracy from talents worldwide, beyond solely considering candidates within the APNIC service region. Talking about meritocracy, more than half of the world population lives in the APNIC service region, its staggering to know that the "big population, small talent pool' myth is still prevalent in this day and age!!! It's quite a feat to generalize an entire region's potential based on a narrow viewpoint, without any basis or data point. But, it's your viewpoint and you can keep believing that Asia Pacific can't find a good candidate for leadership meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to be amazed by the incredible talents and diverse expertise that this vibrant region consistently produces. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net> -- -- Kind regards. Lu -- -- Kind regards. Lu
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
