[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Dilip Kounmany]

Chris

Shows you are not in the market again.
You didn’t count the Subsidiary company.

Do a research before you make your opinion.


On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 8:19 PM Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> I wasn't going to continue further, however, due to the lack of substance
> in your previous e-mail I feel a response is necessary.
>
> "many large members are only use less than 10% of their resources" is a
> lie. Organisations that have been delegated a large allocation (such as
> Telstra, Hurricane Electric, Singtel, AT Services, the list goes on) do
> not use less than 10% of their holdings. To allege that many large
> companies only use less than 10% is simply absurd. Please retract your
> statement, or provide factual evidence to substantiate your claim.
>
> LARUS does not lease out IPs so that "developing country in APNIC region
> can prosper". If you had a genuine care to support LDCs in the APNIC
> region, you would tell them to apply directly to APNIC in order to obtain
> resources where they would only pay 50% of the member fees being $590.00
> AUD for a single /24 subnet, equating to $2.31 AUD per-IP, per-year as of
> today.
>
> To be fair, I do not know what you charge your customers therefore I
> cannot comment as to your exact (or even estimated) profits. I can,
> however, speculate based on current market conditions. The cheapest /24
> prefix on IPXO leases for as little as $100 USD per-month. Based on your
> holdings of the equivalent of a 1 x /10 and 1 x /11 subnet this calculates
> to a maximum theoretical amount of $2,457,600 USD. Your fees to AFRINIC for
> your current holdings based on information on the AFRINIC website would be
> approximately $48,400.00 USD. Again, to be fair, let's assume that you
> lease a /24 for $50 USD per month. Based on this, your yearly AFRINIC fee
> is less than 4% of your maximum theoretical monthly revenue. So please,
> cease claiming that LARUS is not in it for the money. The writing's on the
> wall.
>
> LARUS is also not comparable to companies like Telstra. They provide
> substantially more services than what LARUS does, and their operational
> costs would be multitudes greater than what yours are. The two are not even
> in the same ballpark.
>
> Your rhetoric that you enable companies to provide affordable internet
> access is laughable. Again, if you had a genuine interest in supporting
> affordable internet access for developing nations, you would act in a
> consultancy capacity only and assist these organisations in applying for
> resources directly from the RIRs, instead of leasing the resources to them.
>
> The above is not disinformation or a personal attack, it is stating
> factual information that is free for all to access or making fair and
> reasonable assumptions based on market data.
>
> I did not (or even so much as attempt to say) that you should not
> participate in RIR governance matters. I'm all for open dialogue with any
> party on governance matters, where it is in the genuine interest of the
> broader community. Arguments such as "those involved in litigation with
> APNIC should be able to join APNIC's EC" is not in members' interests for
> obvious reasons.
>
> And finally, some common ground. I agree I do not have the right to
> silence the community. I'm not attempting to, nor have I ever attempted to
> do so.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
>
> ----------
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 13, 2023 2:00 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Dilip Kounmany ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Your argument simply makes no sense.
>
> Looking at the utilization rate of IP address holders, my company
> definitely are on the high side, many large members are only use less than
> 10% of their resources.
>
> We do not stockpile IPs, instead, we lease out our IP at affordable rates
> so developing country in APNIC region can prosper.
>
> We supply IP addresses for a few dollars each year, while most providers
> such as Telstra charge them at a few dollars per month.
>
> A ten time price difference.
>
> We are the low income housing provider here enabling affordable internet
> access, as backed by data.
>
> Stop your disinformation and personal attack please.
>
> And how is it relevant to the APNIC governance discussion, you are trying
> to say that because I did something you don't like, you want to exclude me
> from participation in the governance discussion?
>
> You DO not have the right to silence the community.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 22:20, Christopher

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Barry Greene]

> On Aug 12, 2023, at 10:02 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:
> 
> stop deformation and personal attack.

Yes, Mr Lu - take a break from your behavior and think about the consequences 
of your abrasive attacks. Constituents are leaving apnic-talk. 

If you goal is to influence policy - success - people are leaving. 


___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Barry Greene]

> On Aug 13, 2023, at 6:28 AM, David Conrad  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

You were not there. You are not going back and reading the history. You are not 
talking to people who lead the dialog. The alternative proposal for a one RIR 
was strongly lobbied. That one RIR was under the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU) under the United Nations. 

Through broad community consultation & consensus, the approach of “common 
heritage of mankind” - bottom up - custodianship was selected. This was first 
proposed in the 1995 Harvard Internet Goverance meeting. This is the model we 
have today. As David points out, the ‘warts’ are a feature of the constant 
constituent dialog.  

Do something simple, read through the APRCOT Green Paper dialog (below). It 
would give you some insight into past consultations that shape Internet 
governance. 

https://www.senki.org/icann-history-apricot-98-part-1/
ICANN History: "Green Paper" @ APRICOT 98 (Part One)
senki.org

___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[David Conrad]

On Aug 11, 2023, at 9:59 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:
> I understand you really like the dictatorship mode where first you then paul 
> Wilson can change the bylaw without the membership just like recently 
> demonstrated.

I would suggest it is unwise to presume understanding about that which you know 
nothing about.

> The lack of governance matter contact for members and folks like you and 
> chris try to forbid members hear the position of candidates and make informed 
> voting decision, is something seriously wrong.

It is also unwise to lie. I will not speak for Chris, but at no time have I 
ever suggested forbidding members to "hear the position of candidates and make 
informed voting decision”. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence, 
otherwise please retract your lie.

> With thousands member I have talked to, they all agree.

Thousands.

> It’s a problem need to be fixed here, not something you yet show off again 
> just like that deed of trust.

Typically, when one believes a problem exists that they feel necessitates 
change, they document what that problem actually is in concrete terms rather 
than engage in histrionics and emotional appeals to lofty ideals. APNIC, for 
all its warts, has existed for 30 years, the RIR system, for all its warts, for 
a bit more than that, and over time it has evolved to attempt to meet the 
changes in the Internet.  One can argue whether the evolution has been 
sufficient, but to do so effectively, it generally helps to point out what is 
not functioning, the impact of that lack of function, and (ideally) proposals 
to improve.  Could you point me to a succinct statement of what you believe the 
problem(s) is(are), why it(they) is(are) problem(s), and (ideally) your 
proposals to improve?

Regards,
-drc





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[David Conrad]

On Aug 10, 2023, at 11:22 PM, Lu Heng  wrote:
> 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.

So, presumably, you and your colleagues are fighting to allow non-citizens to 
vote in your respective national elections. A lofty goal.

> 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.

Quoting RFC 1366 (from 1992):

   The major reason to distribute the registration function is that the
   Internet serves a more diverse global population than it did at its
   inception.  This means that registries which are located in distinct
   geographic areas may be better able to serve the local community in
   terms of language and local customs.

Whether or not this decision made 30 years ago was a mistake is, of course, a 
matter of opinion. However, as discussed in RFC 7020, section 5, the 
methodology by which Internet numbers registry system should evolve is:

   Per the delineation of responsibility for Internet address policy
   issues specified in the IETF/IAB/ICANN MOU [RFC2860], discussions
   regarding the evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System
   structure, policy, and processes are to take place within the ICANN
   framework and will respect ICANN's core values [ICANNBL].

I would suggest it likely that many view the activities and efforts of LARUS 
and its associated entities as not particularly constructive in this regard.

Regards,
-drc




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[David Conrad]

On Aug 10, 2023, at 8:09 PM, Hubert  wrote:
> We are fine with the rules set out by the commission in prohibiting the usage 
> of whoisdata found in the disclosure system, but our contention has always 
> been,

> 
> "what if, the data that is found in the disclosure system, which incidentally 
> had also been published in other third party platforms? and since the contact 
> details are not distinctively unique, plus neither APNIC holds any exclusive 
> ownership over the pool of data, nor had they taken extra precautionary 
> measures to limit the reproduction/replicate of data elsewhere; why shall the 
> members who mean well be then prosecuted by merely relying on contacts 
> details that are available in public sphere”


You and your colleagues may, of course, make whatever contention you’d like, 
just as people who obtain fenced goods often proclaim their innocence. It is 
indeed possible that some entity obtained the APNIC whois database and made it 
available for use in a spam run, however the copyright statement that you and 
your colleagues claim you are “fine with” states explicitly:

"Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities are 
explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted. APNIC requests to be notified of 
any such activities or suspicions thereof."

It would be quite surprising that you or your colleagues would not have 
“suspicions” about the provenance of the APNIC whois data contact information 
or a service claiming to make use of that information.

As far as I am aware, the reality is that contact information found in the 
APNIC whois database was used for unsolicited email related to voting in the EC 
election. Dilip Kounmany stated "If candidates are reaching out to members 
during the election period, I don't see any issue with it.”, which is fine as 
long as that outreach does not violate community established policies related 
to conformity to copyright. However, most network operators I know do take 
issue with spam and may view organizations that take part in it, regardless of 
the methodology by which the contact information was obtained, poorly.

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

Just so you know, we (read: LARUS Limited) did provide consultancy services in 
assisting the uninitiated to apply for memberships in RIR, and in fact for 
numerous times acted pro bono for certain organisations for good cause, 
enclosed herewith the embedded link 
(https://www.larus.net/ip-management-service) which evidences such scopes fall 
under our IP management services' remit.

At some point, you have to understand that as a sustainable business, one has 
to provide added values to customers, and as organisation that is 
value-creating and customer-centric, the leasing service of ours come into 
picture for certain customers who wish to utilise IP resources ASAP without 
having to go through the RIR's bureaucracy and red tapes, and this is where we 
came in to solve the perennial problems, where backseat "senior manager" like 
you would be standing on the moral high ground and calling us out for 
exploiting and capitalising on resources while all we do is to contribute for 
betterment of mankind.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

If you can substantiate your statement with empirical data and solid proof, it 
is best not to say anything at all. 

You are getting delusional as we speak and getting too engrossed on spewing 
baseless allegations and libellous statements without undergoing in-depth 
research and studies on the subject topic. 

Internet censorship in China is a very complex issues and there are also lots 
of systemic issues at play which contributed to current situation and all in 
all, this is just not something that you could sum it up with few broken lines 
here and there; neither APNIC or you could have any say in this rather 
controversial topic, and certainly do not be quick to jump in to conclusion 
that our silence/non-rebuttal amounts to acquiescence to whatever 
disinformation you spreading, we simply are taking the high road and refused to 
stoop low in having academic arguments on something that one ought to be tread 
carefully.

Could you please take a step back and channel your energy into our lists of 
by-laws reforms to make APNIC a better community for all? Ironically the new 
thread you started now are titled as bylaws reforms amendments, so let's circle 
back to where it all started and let us have your thoughts on whether there 
shall be new classification on membership tiers regarding the voting rights 
accorded to them. Thank you.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Again, you are chopping and changing words to suit your own rhetoric, grasping 
at straws when you have no alternative.

I didn't say that anyone who disagrees with me and supports you has integrity 
issues. Re-read my e-mail.

I do not need to prove anything that has already been proven. China is known to 
censor internet access. China Telecommunications Group and China Mobile are 
state-sponsored telecommunications carriers. You can't tell me that these 
organisations are free to allow its users within mainland China access to 
websites such as Google, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), etc. This does not 
represent a "free internet" which goes against what you are claiming are your 
core ethos.

I'm not certain as to who China Telecom and China Mobile have as their 
customers, so I cannot comment on that.

At no point did I say that China Telecom and China Mobile should be excluded 
from APNIC governance matters. Again, stop twisting words to suit your own 
rhetoric.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 7:55 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany 
; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

You mean any member who disagrees with you and supports me has integrity 
problems?

Wasn't that exactly the same sentence as suggesting every member who voted for 
me in the last election because of the bride?

This is a serious allegation, you better sustain it otherwise we might have to 
discuss that in court, I will have to defend strongly for the members who 
support me.

Yes, our customer includes China telecom and China mobile, but I am pretty sure 
every major telecom, including telstra, NTT have china mobile and china telecom 
as their customer.

So you are saying you want to disqualify China Telecom and China Mobile, 
including any member who has business with them from participating in APNIC 
governance matters?

Seriously?


On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:49, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
I'll address each point separately.

> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question members' 
> integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?

I trust the membership system. As for trusting individual members, I cannot say 
whether or not I do trust them as I have not had dealings with the vast 
majority of the 9500 APNIC members. There are, however, some members whose 
integrity can be called into question.

> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural 
> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions, 
> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could 
> exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.

You preach that you claim for a "free internet", yet some of your clients that 
you support (China Telecommunications Group and China Mobile to name some, 
based on information on your website) are state-sponsored telecommunications 
carriers who are known to censor internet access. This is public knowledge.

> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?

I haven't had dealings with your clients so I cannot state with any certainty 
whether or not I would have problems with them.

> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member, are 
> you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute to 
> the governance of APNIC?
> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?

No, I do not, because the vast majority of members who hold IP resources use 
them for the purposes in which they told APNIC they would use them and didn't 
obtain them under false pretenses.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: David Conrad mailto:d...@virtualized.org>>; Dilip 
Kounmany mailto:dlilipk2...@gmail.com>>; 
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> 
mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question members' 
integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?

LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural 
backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions, 
instead, we respect their rights to have their views.

And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could exist 
to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.

By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?

Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but d

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

I'll address each point separately.

> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question members' 
> integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?

I trust the membership system. As for trusting individual members, I cannot say 
whether or not I do trust them as I have not had dealings with the vast 
majority of the 9500 APNIC members. There are, however, some members whose 
integrity can be called into question.

> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural 
> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions, 
> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could 
> exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.

You preach that you claim for a "free internet", yet some of your clients that 
you support (China Telecommunications Group and China Mobile to name some, 
based on information on your website) are state-sponsored telecommunications 
carriers who are known to censor internet access. This is public knowledge.

> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?

I haven't had dealings with your clients so I cannot state with any certainty 
whether or not I would have problems with them.

> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member, are 
> you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute to 
> the governance of APNIC?
> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?

No, I do not, because the vast majority of members who hold IP resources use 
them for the purposes in which they told APNIC they would use them and didn't 
obtain them under false pretenses.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 7:19 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany 
; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question members' 
integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?

LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural 
backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions, 
instead, we respect their rights to have their views.

And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could exist 
to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.

By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?

Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member, are you 
suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute to the 
governance of APNIC?

You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?

Seriously?



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Lu,

I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was bribed. I 
strongly you re-read my statements again.

APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are 
attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be susceptible 
to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free resources" or financial 
remuneration. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and 
the buying of votes can happen in any economy or service region, and because 
APNIC covers just over half of the world's population and has one of the 
largest (if not the largest) member bases, it is more prone to happen within 
the APNIC region. And to think that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's 
all about education, training and development to mitigate these risks and 
prevent them from happening.

You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so members will 
truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource holdings that you 
hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding $240m USD. This is in 
itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't think you quite grasp that 
concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will not work, as there needs to be 
some form of registry to manage allocations. This is what the RIRs are designed 
to do.

Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is 
hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or 
state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use. Before 
you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you may want to 
start advocating to your clients.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: David Conrad mailto:d...@virtualized.org>>; Dilip 
Kounmany mailto:dlilipk2...@gmail.com>>; 
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

gt;>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>>>>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that
>>>>>>> are attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>>>>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>>>>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>>>>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in 
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) 
>>>>>>> member
>>>>>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>>>>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP 
>>>>>>> resource
>>>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value 
>>>>>>> exceeding
>>>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I 
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs 
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage 
>>>>>>> allocations.
>>>>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free"
>>>>>>> is hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, 
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Christopher H.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>>>>>>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>>>>>>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law
>>>>>>> reforms
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last
>>>>>>> election is because of monetary incentives?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters
>>>>>>> might be forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
>>>>>>> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
>>>>>>> such accusation is simply absurd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
>>>>>>> corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, 
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> of the world's most wealthy companies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I
>>>>>>> was advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored 
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> too long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective 
>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>> to do somethi

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk]

at it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I 
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs 
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage 
>>>>>> allocations.
>>>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free"
>>>>>> is hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>>>>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christopher H.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>>>>>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>>>>>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>>>>>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law
>>>>>> reforms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election
>>>>>> is because of monetary incentives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters
>>>>>> might be forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
>>>>>> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
>>>>>> such accusation is simply absurd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
>>>>>> corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some
>>>>>> of the world's most wealthy companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I
>>>>>> was advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for
>>>>>> too long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective 
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> to do something about the problematic governance of APNIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the
>>>>>> ignorance of the membership, stop trying to block their information, stop
>>>>>> trying to live on their ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thank the members who voted for me, and I will continue to advocate
>>>>>> better governance for the RIRs, ultimately, decentralize the registration
>>>>>> database so members will truly own their registration, they will no 
>>>>>> longer
>>>>>> need to submit to people like you think RIR should be run like an
>>>>>> authoritarian government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Internet will finally be free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 15:11, Christopher Hawker <
>>>>>> ch...@thesysadmin.dev> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even
>>>>>> insinuate that it was. As was explained during the community 
>>>>>> consultations,
>>>>>> the EC only used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote
>>>>>> twice in 25 years - once to expand the EC fro

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

esource
>>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I 
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs 
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage 
>>>>>> allocations.
>>>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free"
>>>>>> is hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>>>>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Christopher H.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>>>>>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>>>>>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>>>>>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>>>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law
>>>>>> reforms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election
>>>>>> is because of monetary incentives?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters
>>>>>> might be forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
>>>>>> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
>>>>>> such accusation is simply absurd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
>>>>>> corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some
>>>>>> of the world's most wealthy companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I
>>>>>> was advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for
>>>>>> too long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective 
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> to do something about the problematic governance of APNIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the
>>>>>> ignorance of the membership, stop trying to block their information, stop
>>>>>> trying to live on their ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thank the members who voted for me, and I will continue to advocate
>>>>>> better governance for the RIRs, ultimately, decentralize the registration
>>>>>> database so members will truly own their registration, they will no 
>>>>>> longer
>>>>>> need to submit to people like you think RIR should be run like an
>>>>>> authoritarian government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Internet will finally be free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 15:11, Christopher Hawker <
>>>>>> ch...@thesysadmin.dev> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even
>>>>>> insinuate that it was. As was explained during the community 
>>>>>> consultations,
>>>>>> the EC only used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote
>>>>>> twice in 25 years - once to expand the EC from 5 to 7 members, and to
>>>>>> require a super majority of 75% of all EC members to change the bylaws
>>>>>> without a member vote. This clearly demonstrates that the EC acts in no
>>>>>> other way than for the benefit of the members and should speak as to 
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> values.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Al

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Olerato Manyaapelo]

Stop sending me emails

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 11:31, Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk <
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> wrote:

> Actually,
>
> To Lu’s defence we were in a loud bar and during our somewhat candid
> discussion I said “I might have voted for you” in another life but that
> could be misheard.
>
> But alas, sorry to burst your bubble.
>
> —Karl.
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:27, Karl Kloppenborg 
> wrote:
>
>> I’d like it released if possible from APNIC to show that I didn’t vote
>> for Lu, but nice try, I heard you told a journalist that too.
>>
>> —Karl.
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Karl:
>>>
>>> Thank you for voting for me in last election.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:24, Karl Kloppenborg <
>>> k...@rapidwireless.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.
>>>>
>>>> But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the
>>>> most laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.
>>>>
>>>> Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
>>>> leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her
>>>> to explain her policies.
>>>>
>>>> —Karl.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>>
>>>>> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
>>>>> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
>>>>> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
>>>>> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet
>>>>> could exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member,
>>>>> are you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to 
>>>>> contribute
>>>>> to the governance of APNIC?
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker <
>>>>> ch...@thesysadmin.dev> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lu,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>>>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>>>>>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>>>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>>>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>>>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in 
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>>>>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>>>>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>>>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I 
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs 
>>>>>> will
>>>>

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk]

Actually,

To Lu’s defence we were in a loud bar and during our somewhat candid
discussion I said “I might have voted for you” in another life but that
could be misheard.

But alas, sorry to burst your bubble.

—Karl.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:27, Karl Kloppenborg 
wrote:

> I’d like it released if possible from APNIC to show that I didn’t vote for
> Lu, but nice try, I heard you told a journalist that too.
>
> —Karl.
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Lu Heng  wrote:
>
>> Hi Karl:
>>
>> Thank you for voting for me in last election.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:24, Karl Kloppenborg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.
>>>
>>> But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the
>>> most laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.
>>>
>>> Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
>>> leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.
>>>
>>> Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her
>>> to explain her policies.
>>>
>>> —Karl.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>
>>>> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
>>>> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>>>>
>>>> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
>>>> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
>>>> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>>>>
>>>> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet
>>>> could exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member,
>>>> are you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute
>>>> to the governance of APNIC?
>>>>
>>>> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lu,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>>>
>>>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>>>>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in 
>>>>> any
>>>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>>>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>>>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>>> happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't
>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will
>>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage 
>>>>> allocations.
>>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free"
>>>>> is hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>>>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>>

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Karl:

That is what you told me during the APNIC meeting, you can lie whatever you
can of course.

I am not saying I believed it, but if you lied in front of me, you are
simply not worthy of discussion.

Honesty is the basis of any discussion.

I told him because I was really surprised.



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:28, Karl Kloppenborg 
wrote:

> I’d like it released if possible from APNIC to show that I didn’t vote for
> Lu, but nice try, I heard you told a journalist that too.
>
> —Karl.
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Lu Heng  wrote:
>
>> Hi Karl:
>>
>> Thank you for voting for me in last election.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:24, Karl Kloppenborg 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.
>>>
>>> But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the
>>> most laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.
>>>
>>> Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
>>> leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.
>>>
>>> Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her
>>> to explain her policies.
>>>
>>> —Karl.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>
>>>> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
>>>> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>>>>
>>>> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
>>>> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
>>>> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>>>>
>>>> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet
>>>> could exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member,
>>>> are you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute
>>>> to the governance of APNIC?
>>>>
>>>> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lu,
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>>>
>>>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>>>>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in 
>>>>> any
>>>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>>>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>>>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>>> happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't
>>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will
>>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage 
>>>>> allocations.
>>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free"
>>>>> is hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>&

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk]

I’d like it released if possible from APNIC to show that I didn’t vote for
Lu, but nice try, I heard you told a journalist that too.

—Karl.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Lu Heng  wrote:

> Hi Karl:
>
> Thank you for voting for me in last election.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:24, Karl Kloppenborg 
> wrote:
>
>> I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.
>>
>> But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the
>> most laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.
>>
>> Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
>> leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.
>>
>> Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her
>> to explain her policies.
>>
>> —Karl.
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris:
>>>
>>> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
>>> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>>>
>>> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
>>> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
>>> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>>>
>>> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet
>>> could exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>>>
>>> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>>>
>>> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member,
>>> are you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute
>>> to the governance of APNIC?
>>>
>>> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lu,
>>>>
>>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>>
>>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>>>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in any
>>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>>> happening.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't
>>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will
>>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage allocations.
>>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>>
>>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is
>>>> hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christopher H.
>>>> --
>>>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>>>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>>>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>>>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law
>>>> reforms
>>>>
>>>> Hi Chris:
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the la

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Karl:

Thank you for voting for me in last election.



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:24, Karl Kloppenborg 
wrote:

> I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.
>
> But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the
> most laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.
>
> Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
> leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.
>
> Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her to
> explain her policies.
>
> —Karl.
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris:
>>
>> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
>> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>>
>> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
>> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
>> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>>
>> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could
>> exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>>
>> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>>
>> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member,
>> are you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute
>> to the governance of APNIC?
>>
>> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lu,
>>>
>>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was
>>> bribed. I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>>
>>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in any
>>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>>> happening.
>>>
>>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't
>>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will
>>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage allocations.
>>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>>
>>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is
>>> hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christopher H.
>>> --
>>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law
>>> reforms
>>>
>>> Hi Chris:
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election is
>>> because of monetary incentives?
>>>
>>> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>>>
>>> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters might
>>> be forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
>>> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
>>> such accusation is simply absurd.
>>>
>>> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
>>> corporations,and many of them are multi billi

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk]

I’ve refrained from commenting for a while now.

But the irony of you saying “The internet will finally be free” is the most
laughable comment I’ve seen you expound.

Yes Lu, I’m sure it’ll be free, free of RIR charges but not free from
leasing those valuable resources from LARUS corporation.

Speaking of which, where’s Larissa Santos at? I’m still waiting for her to
explain her policies.

—Karl.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 19:19, Lu Heng  wrote:

> Hi Chris:
>
> First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question
> members' integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?
>
> LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
> backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
> instead, we respect their rights to have their views.
>
> And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could
> exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.
>
> By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?
>
> Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member, are
> you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute to
> the governance of APNIC?
>
> You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?
>
> Seriously?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
>> Lu,
>>
>> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was bribed.
>> I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>>
>> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
>> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
>> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
>> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
>> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in any
>> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
>> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
>> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
>> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
>> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
>> happening.
>>
>> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so
>> members will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource
>> holdings that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding
>> $240m USD. This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't
>> think you quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will
>> not work, as there needs to be some form of registry to manage allocations.
>> This is what the RIRs are designed to do.
>>
>> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is
>> hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
>> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
>> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
>> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christopher H.
>> --
>> *From:* Lu Heng 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
>> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
>> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
>> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
>> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>>
>> Hi Chris:
>>
>> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election is
>> because of monetary incentives?
>>
>> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>>
>> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters might
>> be forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
>> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
>> such accusation is simply absurd.
>>
>> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
>> corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some
>> of the world's most wealthy companies.
>>
>> The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I was
>> advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for too
>> long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective action to
>> do something about the problematic governance of APNIC.
>>
>> In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the ignorance
>> of the membership, 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

First you suggest members should keep ignorance, then you question members'
integrity, you simply do not trust the membership, do you?

LARUS works with clients from over 60 countries of different cultural
backgrounds, we do not judge, to decide our customer's value, opinions,
instead, we respect their rights to have their views.

And we believe exactly because of this diversity, a single internet could
exist to this day, otherwise, we will have no internet by now.

By the way, which client of ours do you have problems with?

Yes, we have IP addresses worth some money, but do every APNIC member, are
you suggesting anyone holding an IP address is conflicted to contribute to
the governance of APNIC?

You want to forbid all APNIC members to participate?

Seriously?



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 17:10, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Lu,
>
> I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was bribed.
> I strongly you re-read my statements again.
>
> APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are
> attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be
> susceptible to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free
> resources" or financial remuneration. This sort of behaviour is
> unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and the buying of votes can happen in any
> economy or service region, and because APNIC covers just over half of the
> world's population and has one of the largest (if not the largest) member
> bases, it is more prone to happen within the APNIC region. And to think
> that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's all about education,
> training and development to mitigate these risks and prevent them from
> happening.
>
> You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so members
> will truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource holdings
> that you hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding $240m USD.
> This is in itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't think you
> quite grasp that concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will not work,
> as there needs to be some form of registry to manage allocations. This is
> what the RIRs are designed to do.
>
> Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is
> hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or
> state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use.
> Before you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you
> may want to start advocating to your clients.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany <
> dlilipk2...@gmail.com>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election is
> because of monetary incentives?
>
> Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.
>
> While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters might be
> forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
> unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
> such accusation is simply absurd.
>
> The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
> corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some
> of the world's most wealthy companies.
>
> The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I was
> advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for too
> long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective action to
> do something about the problematic governance of APNIC.
>
> In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the ignorance
> of the membership, stop trying to block their information, stop trying to
> live on their ignorance.
>
> I thank the members who voted for me, and I will continue to advocate
> better governance for the RIRs, ultimately, decentralize the registration
> database so members will truly own their registration, they will no longer
> need to submit to people like you think RIR should be run like an
> authoritarian government.
>
> The Internet will finally be free.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 15:11, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even
> insinuate that it was. As was explained during the community consultations,
> the EC only used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote
> twice in 25 years - once to expand the EC fr

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[JJ]

Hi Christopher,

The qualifications of Dr. Felter, while commendable in their own right, do not 
preclude him from offering an informed opinion on APNIC's corporate structure. 
His expertise in various legal domains reflects a versatile analytical mind, 
well-suited to critically assess organizational structures. Your insistence on 
Australian corporate law as the sole criterion for commentary disregards the 
broader insight and legitimate concerns he raised about APNIC's governance.

It is worth noting that Dr. Felter's commentary was not a legal indictment but 
rather a thought-provoking analysis that triggered a necessary conversation 
about potential inefficiencies within APNIC's structure. The assertion that his 
commentary lacks weight due to a specific legal qualification is a narrow 
interpretation of constructive criticism.

Moreover, your skepticism regarding the impact of Dr. Felter's analysis on 
APNIC's corporate structure is misguided. While he might not be the sole 
catalyst, his insights undeniably played a role in igniting a discourse that 
led to changes. The subsequent focus on addressing structural issues within 
APNIC is a testament to the substantive nature of his observations.

Trust placed in EC members is vital, but it should not overshadow the 
importance of proactive risk management and accountability. While the EC 
undoubtedly holds significant power, it is a basic principle of effective 
governance to anticipate potential risks and take preemptive actions. The 
argument that just because the EC possesses the ability to amend the by-laws 
doesn't imply they will, oversimplifies the intricacies of governance and risk 
mitigation.

The assertion that the EC's exercise of power inherently reflects trust is an 
oversimplification. Robust governance involves not only trust but also 
transparent processes and safeguards that limit potential risks. I MUST 
EMPHASIZE, this is not an indictment of the EC's integrity, but a recognition 
of the need for comprehensive governance measures that bolster accountability, 
protect members' interests, and ensure the organization's longevity.

In conclusion, your assertions overlook the holistic nature of governance and 
risk management, which go beyond qualifications or trust. Dr. Felter's 
commentary spurred a critical evaluation that contributes to a more robust 
APNIC, while the need for prudent risk mitigation remains an essential aspect 
of any well-functioning organization.

Thanks.

JJ
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

I did not suggest or even infer that anyone who voted for you was bribed. I 
strongly you re-read my statements again.

APNIC does indeed have individuals from developing economies that are 
attempting to build a better internet. Some of these members may be susceptible 
to having their votes purchased in exchange for "free resources" or financial 
remuneration. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable. Corruption, bribery and 
the buying of votes can happen in any economy or service region, and because 
APNIC covers just over half of the world's population and has one of the 
largest (if not the largest) member bases, it is more prone to happen within 
the APNIC region. And to think that it doesn't happen is simply ignorant. It's 
all about education, training and development to mitigate these risks and 
prevent them from happening.

You cannot advocate for "decentralize the registration database so members will 
truly own their registration", due to your sheer IP resource holdings that you 
hold with an estimated secondary market value exceeding $240m USD. This is in 
itself, what defines a conflict of interest. I don't think you quite grasp that 
concept. Further, decentralisation of RIRs will not work, as there needs to be 
some form of registry to manage allocations. This is what the RIRs are designed 
to do.

Further, your advocacy for an "Internet [that] will finally be free" is 
hypocritical. LARUS supports and works with known state-based or 
state-controlled organisations that censor and restrict internet use. Before 
you start advocating for a "free internet" on the world stage, you may want to 
start advocating to your clients.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:43 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: David Conrad ; Dilip Kounmany 
; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election is 
because of monetary incentives?

Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.

While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters might be 
forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an unfortunate 
reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election, such accusation is 
simply absurd.

The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are 
corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some of 
the world's most wealthy companies.

The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I was 
advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for too long, 
because they believe it's time for them to take collective action to do 
something about the problematic governance of APNIC.

In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the ignorance of 
the membership, stop trying to block their information, stop trying to live on 
their ignorance.

I thank the members who voted for me, and I will continue to advocate better 
governance for the RIRs, ultimately, decentralize the registration database so 
members will truly own their registration, they will no longer need to submit 
to people like you think RIR should be run like an authoritarian government.

The Internet will finally be free.



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 15:11, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even insinuate 
that it was. As was explained during the community consultations, the EC only 
used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote twice in 25 years 
- once to expand the EC from 5 to 7 members, and to require a super majority of 
75% of all EC members to change the bylaws without a member vote. This clearly 
demonstrates that the EC acts in no other way than for the benefit of the 
members and should speak as to their values.

Allegedly offering monetary and resource incentives, and then (allegedly) 
asking members to forward screenshots to NRS.help is not helping candidates 
make an informed decision. The EC members have made a name for themselves 
within the community through their work and commitment to a better internet. 
This is where people see value in nominating and voting for them to become EC 
members. If you really wanted to get out there and campaign for a position on 
the EC, you would be actively engaging with the community like the current EC 
members have, not be hung up on APNIC compiling a list of governance contacts 
for you to send campaigning materials to.

While some wording in the current drafted by-law reforms could be construed as 
vague, the concept remains the same. It's designed to protect members' rights 
and allow them to have their voices heard as well as protect the interests of 
APNIC as a whole. Allowing individuals who feel the need to seek redress from 
APNIC through li

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

ctor-General. It's only you that seems to have an issue with
> this. You should be ashamed of yourself, referring to the EC as "power
> hungry individuals".
>
> Members have always held power within APNIC. 20% of its members can call
> for an extraordinary meeting to amend by-law changes, and to effect changes
> only two-thirds of all votes cast are required. This is a substantial
> amount of power that members hold.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:28 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> "Every RIR has a stipulation (and is written into their agreements) that
> resources delegated by them are used in their service region."
>
> Saw me the clause. Disinformation.
>
> All large providers, such as Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent are using APNIC or
> ARIN IP worldwide.
>
> RIRs have no jurisdiction over its members, how its members run their
> network are not the business of RIR.
>
> "They refused to provide resources because you refused to provide
> information requested to support the use-case, and when you did provide
> information, it was regarded as misleading and inconsistent."
>
> Disinformation again.
>
> ARIN policy requires user data down to street level, in which I do not
> collect in my business, hence I proactively choose to abandon the
> application in protection of user privacy.
>
> Yes, I might lose a million IP because of that, but I value user privacy
> much more.
>
> " Without IP resources, you have no business, plain and simple. "
>
> To enlighten you, without IP resources, there is no internet, so everyone
> in this list will have no business, plain and simple.
>
> So what's your point?
>
> "I actively support an open and transparent RIR and its member's
> participation, which APNIC has demonstrated for the last 25 years."
>
> APNIC has demonstrated in the past 25 years that Paul Wilson always can
> change the bylaw without membership at "stroke of pen", exactly like the
> research Dr.Peter suggested, and exactly as he did just a few weeks ago.
>
> "This has provided the Directors of APNIC Pty Ltd with the ability to
> change the by-laws without the need for a Member vote." --Kenny Huang
>
> If this kind of dictatorship is what you are embracing, of course you do
> not want people advocating better governance to reach out to members and
> let them know the truth.
>
> If it was not for me, there will be no governance change, if it was not
> for LARUS's extensive research and education to the membership, to this
> day, Paul wilson will still be the single director and shareholder of the
> company.(
> https://www.larus.net/legal-review-highlights-risk-to-the-internet-across-asia-pacific
> )
>
> Power hungry individuals have been hiding the trust of deeds for that 25
> years, and it was us who asked for it in public, and finally it was
> released this year.
>
> We did it all for the members, and for members to have their rights and
> voice heard.
>
> And you still try deadly hard to block it.
>
> Time has changed, it's time to give ture power back to the membership,
> trust the members, not try to grasp the last bit of power that slipping
> away from you and your friend, in which you and your friends will simply
> fail, members will win and have their voice heard.
>
> We should have one internet that is for all to participate and decide.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 14:35, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Lu,
>
> Your financial interest in IP resources lies in the fact that without
> them, your business ceases to exist. If you can't see that then I (nor
> anyone else) can help you. I also still cannot understand why you're
> likening LARUS and Cloud Innovation to an ISP, I've disproven that
> statement (as has others within the internet community) countless times.
>
> Yes, while people with IP holdings may have an inherent financial interest
> due to a secondary market value, it's not their primary interest as is the
> case with Larus and Cloud Innovation. Without IP resources, you have no
> business, plain and simple. If a small ISP or MSP were to dispose of their
> IP resource holdings, they would have other revenue streams they could tap
> into. You don't.
>
> The advocacy that I'm seeing from LARUS, such as the whole argument about
> not being able to become a candidate if you are involved in litigation with
> APNIC, doesn't have merit. Jeremy Harrison raised a very valid point during
> the community c

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

[*Note: As I believe Lu sent his response directly to me in error and not to 
the list, I've copied the list back on this email.]

I'm not willing to waste my time gathering information because you can't be 
bothered to, to prove something that is in the public domain.

The information I've shared regarding your application for IP resources through 
ARIN is public on their website - see 
https://www.arin.net/blog/2021/08/27/afrinic-and-the-stability-of-the-internet-number-registry-system/
 for more info. If you're claiming that it is incorrect, you may want to 
contact them and seek an amendment. Given the article was published on 27 
August 2021 (almost 2 years ago) it's highly unlikely to be incorrect as they 
would have amended it by now.

In my view, your decision to "proactively choose to abandon the application in 
protection of user privacy" is false. You were not able to demonstrate a need 
for IP resources for use within the service region, which is why your 
application was rejected by ARIN, not abandoned by you.

"without IP resources, there is no internet" is the very reason IANA and the 
RIRs were established to manage IP resource allocation and delegation. Not for 
companies to receive them, then lease them out in order to make a profit. The 
world doesn't need LARUS in order to obtain IP resources, they can approach the 
RIRs directly with justification.

I'd like to know what qualifications Dr. Felter has that would allow him to 
comment on Australian law. Based on general internet searches, he specialises 
in International Energy law and more recently has been a bible scholar. In my 
view (based on my own findings), he is not a qualified person to comment on the 
corporate structure of APNIC. Had the individual been qualified in Australian 
corporate law, then it might have held more weight. His comment in the article 
on your website in the link you posted that reads "APNIC’s legal structure 
should raise a number of red flags, in the first instance to the other RIRs, 
ICANN and Australian Federal authorities" is laughable. Both APNIC Pty Ltd and 
APNIC EC Limited are governed in line with Australian law and have external 
independent auditors in place.

Further, the EC members have an immense amount of trust placed on them. This 
was demonstrated through their appointment in the last EC election. Just 
because someone has the ability to do something, doesn't mean that they will. 
Yes, the EC has the power to amend the by-laws. No, it does not mean they will. 
Them using their powers to do so to provide further protections for members 
should demonstrate their trust in holding these powers and people are only 
elected to the EC through a member vote.

You are not the "saving grace" (and I use that term very loosely) that caused a 
corporate structure change within APNIC. The "extensive research" by a lawyer 
not qualified (nor has a history) in Australian corporate law did not result in 
the corporate structure change.

No one has been hiding the trust deed that was in place for the share held by 
the Director-General. It's only you that seems to have an issue with this. You 
should be ashamed of yourself, referring to the EC as "power hungry 
individuals".

Members have always held power within APNIC. 20% of its members can call for an 
extraordinary meeting to amend by-law changes, and to effect changes only 
two-thirds of all votes cast are required. This is a substantial amount of 
power that members hold.

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 5:28 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

"Every RIR has a stipulation (and is written into their agreements) that 
resources delegated by them are used in their service region."

Saw me the clause. Disinformation.

All large providers, such as Amazon, Alibaba, Tencent are using APNIC or ARIN 
IP worldwide.

RIRs have no jurisdiction over its members, how its members run their network 
are not the business of RIR.

"They refused to provide resources because you refused to provide information 
requested to support the use-case, and when you did provide information, it was 
regarded as misleading and inconsistent."

Disinformation again.

ARIN policy requires user data down to street level, in which I do not collect 
in my business, hence I proactively choose to abandon the application in 
protection of user privacy.

Yes, I might lose a million IP because of that, but I value user privacy much 
more.

" Without IP resources, you have no business, plain and simple. "

To enlighten you, without IP resources, there is no internet, so everyone in 
this list will have no business, plain and simple.

So what's your point?

"I actively support an open and transparent RIR and its member's participation, 
which APNIC 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

Are you suggesting every voter that voted for me in the last election is
because of monetary incentives?

Your mind of corruption is beyond belief.

While bribing voters might work in some poor nations where voters might be
forced to exchange their vote for some essentials to live, an
unfortunate reality but it does happen, but in terms of APNIC election,
such accusation is simply absurd.

The voters of the APNIC election are not poor individuals, they are
corporations,and many of them are multi billion dollar corporations, some
of the world's most wealthy companies.

The 700 plus companies that voted for me because they believe what I was
advocating for, because they believe their voice has been ignored for too
long, because they believe it's time for them to take collective action to
do something about the problematic governance of APNIC.

In the past 25 years, you and your friends have survived on the ignorance
of the membership, stop trying to block their information, stop trying to
live on their ignorance.

I thank the members who voted for me, and I will continue to advocate
better governance for the RIRs, ultimately, decentralize the registration
database so members will truly own their registration, they will no longer
need to submit to people like you think RIR should be run like an
authoritarian government.

The Internet will finally be free.



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 15:11, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even
> insinuate that it was. As was explained during the community consultations,
> the EC only used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote
> twice in 25 years - once to expand the EC from 5 to 7 members, and to
> require a super majority of 75% of all EC members to change the bylaws
> without a member vote. This clearly demonstrates that the EC acts in no
> other way than for the benefit of the members and should speak as to their
> values.
>
> Allegedly offering monetary and resource incentives, and then (allegedly)
> asking members to forward screenshots to NRS.help is not helping candidates
> make an informed decision. The EC members have made a name for themselves
> within the community through their work and commitment to a better
> internet. This is where people see value in nominating and voting for them
> to become EC members. If you really wanted to get out there and campaign
> for a position on the EC, you would be actively engaging with the community
> like the current EC members have, not be hung up on APNIC compiling a list
> of governance contacts for you to send campaigning materials to.
>
> While some wording in the current drafted by-law reforms could be
> construed as vague, the concept remains the same. It's designed to protect
> members' rights and allow them to have their voices heard as well as
> protect the interests of APNIC as a whole. Allowing individuals who feel
> the need to seek redress from APNIC through litigation, then join the EC,
> is not in the best interest.
>
> APNIC members do not need to give candidates any information whatsoever so
> they can share their election manifesto and thoughts. If people don't wish
> to vote (although they are strongly encouraged to do so), this is their
> right. Should they choose to give you their contact information directly in
> order for you to contact them regarding election campaigning, they are
> welcome to do so and no one is stopping them.
>
> And to refer to the EC and/or Director-General as "power hungry
> individuals" is downright despicable and disrespectful. The
> Director-General and EC members of past and present have done nothing to
> warrant or justify that terminology being used. I feel a public apology is
> in order.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 2:59 PM
> *To:* David Conrad 
> *Cc:* Dilip Kounmany ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi David:
>
> I understand you really like the dictatorship mode where first you then
> paul Wilson can change the bylaw without the membership just like recently
> demonstrated.
>
> But I am afraid this is not how democracy works.
>
> Just because under paul Wilson’s leader ship, APNIC’s lawyer put road
> block into something undemocratic, does not mean it’s right.
>
> The lack of governance matter contact for members and folks like you and
> chris try to forbid members hear the position of candidates and make
> informed voting decision, is something seriously wrong.
>
> With thousands member I have talked to, they all agree.
>
> It’s a problem need to be fixed here, not something yo

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

APNIC was never run as a dictatorship. It is simply wrong to even insinuate 
that it was. As was explained during the community consultations, the EC only 
used their powers to change the bylaws without a member vote twice in 25 years 
- once to expand the EC from 5 to 7 members, and to require a super majority of 
75% of all EC members to change the bylaws without a member vote. This clearly 
demonstrates that the EC acts in no other way than for the benefit of the 
members and should speak as to their values.

Allegedly offering monetary and resource incentives, and then (allegedly) 
asking members to forward screenshots to NRS.help is not helping candidates 
make an informed decision. The EC members have made a name for themselves 
within the community through their work and commitment to a better internet. 
This is where people see value in nominating and voting for them to become EC 
members. If you really wanted to get out there and campaign for a position on 
the EC, you would be actively engaging with the community like the current EC 
members have, not be hung up on APNIC compiling a list of governance contacts 
for you to send campaigning materials to.

While some wording in the current drafted by-law reforms could be construed as 
vague, the concept remains the same. It's designed to protect members' rights 
and allow them to have their voices heard as well as protect the interests of 
APNIC as a whole. Allowing individuals who feel the need to seek redress from 
APNIC through litigation, then join the EC, is not in the best interest.

APNIC members do not need to give candidates any information whatsoever so they 
can share their election manifesto and thoughts. If people don't wish to vote 
(although they are strongly encouraged to do so), this is their right. Should 
they choose to give you their contact information directly in order for you to 
contact them regarding election campaigning, they are welcome to do so and no 
one is stopping them.

And to refer to the EC and/or Director-General as "power hungry individuals" is 
downright despicable and disrespectful. The Director-General and EC members of 
past and present have done nothing to warrant or justify that terminology being 
used. I feel a public apology is in order.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 2:59 PM
To: David Conrad 
Cc: Dilip Kounmany ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 

Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi David:

I understand you really like the dictatorship mode where first you then paul 
Wilson can change the bylaw without the membership just like recently 
demonstrated.

But I am afraid this is not how democracy works.

Just because under paul Wilson’s leader ship, APNIC’s lawyer put road block 
into something undemocratic, does not mean it’s right.

The lack of governance matter contact for members and folks like you and chris 
try to forbid members hear the position of candidates and make informed voting 
decision, is something seriously wrong.

With thousands member I have talked to, they all agree.

It’s a problem need to be fixed here, not something you yet show off again just 
like that deed of trust.

APNIC member all need to put up a governance contact and engage in its 
governance process as part of their rights and obligations.

We need give power back to the member, not some power hungry individuals.


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 06:42 David Conrad 
mailto:d...@virtualized.org>> wrote:
On Aug 10, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Dilip Kounmany 
mailto:dlilipk2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If candidates are reaching out to members during the election period, I don't 
see any issue with it.

Presumably you are familiar with the term “spam” as it applies to electronic 
communication.

I'm a bit unclear about what you're opposing here.

Not to speak for Christopher, but you may want to review 
http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html, in particular, the sentence:

"Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is 
explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted.”

I’m a bit unclear why you're pretending using contacts from the APNIC database 
for spam should be acceptable to the community.

Regards,
-drc

___
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

___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

Your financial interest in IP resources lies in the fact that without them, 
your business ceases to exist. If you can't see that then I (nor anyone else) 
can help you. I also still cannot understand why you're likening LARUS and 
Cloud Innovation to an ISP, I've disproven that statement (as has others within 
the internet community) countless times.

Yes, while people with IP holdings may have an inherent financial interest due 
to a secondary market value, it's not their primary interest as is the case 
with Larus and Cloud Innovation. Without IP resources, you have no business, 
plain and simple. If a small ISP or MSP were to dispose of their IP resource 
holdings, they would have other revenue streams they could tap into. You don't.

The advocacy that I'm seeing from LARUS, such as the whole argument about not 
being able to become a candidate if you are involved in litigation with APNIC, 
doesn't have merit. Jeremy Harrison raised a very valid point during the 
community consultations held on 26 and 27 July 2023, that the EC as directors 
may have access to information or be involved in discussions which wouldn't be 
appropriate for an EC member involved in litigation to be part of.

The way in which IP resources are used is very much the business of the RIR. 
RIRs are responsible for managing the resources delegated to them by IANA, and 
this extends to where they are used. Every RIR has a stipulation (and is 
written into their agreements) that resources delegated by them are used in 
their service region. IANAL, if an agreement between two parties is broken then 
the breach needs to be remedied within a reasonable time frame otherwise the 
agreement is terminated. I feel it is worth mentioning that back in 2013, you 
(through your company Outside Heaven Ltd) approached ARIN to obtain in excess 
of 1 million IP addresses. They refused to provide resources because you 
refused to provide information requested to support the use-case, and when you 
did provide information, it was regarded as misleading and inconsistent. Given 
the seriousness of the potentially false statements you made to ARIN in your 
application, they gave you ample opportunity to engage with them to address 
these concerns which you refused to do so. I feel it's a little hard to take 
your "engagement" in community consultations seriously when you have a history 
of not cooperating with RIRs when requesting resources.

The thought that I am "advocating an dictatorship RIR with absolute power over 
ISP" is delusional. I actively support an open and transparent RIR and its 
member's participation, which APNIC has demonstrated for the last 25 years. All 
of an RIR's members play an integral role in its governance through voting, 
community consultation and policy working groups. At no point did I say that 
"[I] want exclude all members from even participate ... because [I] said anyone 
have financial interest in APNIC is excluded". Members are free to operate 
their networks in any way they see fit, provided it does not cause detriment to 
networks they interconnect with, and it is compliant with the terms of 
agreements they may have with their suppliers. What your claiming is akin to me 
approaching an IP transit provider and telling them that I can use their 
service in any way I want because it's not their place to tell me what I can 
use their service for.

Your beliefs are exactly that - your beliefs. If you are seriously interested 
in a free (as in freedom, not as in cost) internet, why are you obtaining 
resources from RIRs and then leasing them out, charging exorbitant fees and 
capitalising on the secondary market when you could simply act in a consultancy 
capacity by direct them to the RIRs and assisting with application for internet 
number resources? Surely this would be far better for the good of the internet.

Your analogy is similar to comparing a wrench to a car. Just because you use a 
wrench (an IP resource) to repair a car (the internet), does not make the 
wrench a car part.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 4:06 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; apnic-talk 
; m.ch...@larus.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

I am not quite sure what you refer to as financial interest here, if you refer 
to a functional registry that is vital to every ISP's business, yes, my 
interest is exactly the same as every other ISP in this list.

Other than that, I do not have any IP address from APNIC, so no, I have no 
financial interest with APNIC's governance, and if you have IP from APNIC, you 
are the one who has financial interest in APNIC, not me.

Nevertheless, unlike you, I will not exclude anyone from APNIC's governance 
discussion just because their financial interest relies on the stability of the 
system, on the contrary, I encourage all stakehol

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi David:

I understand you really like the dictatorship mode where first you then
paul Wilson can change the bylaw without the membership just like recently
demonstrated.

But I am afraid this is not how democracy works.

Just because under paul Wilson’s leader ship, APNIC’s lawyer put road block
into something undemocratic, does not mean it’s right.

The lack of governance matter contact for members and folks like you and
chris try to forbid members hear the position of candidates and make
informed voting decision, is something seriously wrong.

With thousands member I have talked to, they all agree.

It’s a problem need to be fixed here, not something you yet show off again
just like that deed of trust.

APNIC member all need to put up a governance contact and engage in its
governance process as part of their rights and obligations.

We need give power back to the member, not some power hungry individuals.


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 06:42 David Conrad  wrote:

> On Aug 10, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Dilip Kounmany  wrote:
>
> If candidates are reaching out to members during the election period, I
> don't see any issue with it.
>
>
> Presumably you are familiar with the term “spam” as it applies to
> electronic communication.
>
> I'm a bit unclear about what you're opposing here.
>
>
> Not to speak for Christopher, but you may want to review
> http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html, in particular, the sentence:
>
> "Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is
> explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted.”
>
> I’m a bit unclear why you're pretending using contacts from the APNIC
> database for spam should be acceptable to the community.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> ___
> APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

-- 
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Olerato Manyaapelo]

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 
>>> 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 
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
>>>> *To:* m.ch...@larus.net 
>>>> *Cc:* Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk <
>>>> 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
>>>>  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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> 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

-- 
C.O Manyaapelo
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

otect
>> it not abandon it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 14:07, Christopher Hawker 
>> 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 
>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
>>> *To:* m.ch...@larus.net 
>>> *Cc:* Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk <
>>> 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
>>>  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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> 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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

I am not quite sure what you refer to as financial interest here, if you
refer to a functional registry that is vital to every ISP's business, yes,
my interest is exactly the same as every other ISP in this list.

Other than that, I do not have any IP address from APNIC, so no, I have no
financial interest with APNIC's governance, and if you have IP from APNIC,
you are the one who has financial interest in APNIC, not me.

Nevertheless, unlike you, I will not exclude anyone from APNIC's governance
discussion just because their financial interest relies on the stability of
the system, on the contrary, I encourage all stakeholders to take part in
this very important discussion.

The argument that saying I am somehow benefiting financially from
advocating better governance in APNIC is simply abured, How exactly?

Also you mention I use AFRINIC IP outside of their service region, RIR are
merely local internet promotor, they are not government, where you use IP
are none business of any RIR, in fact, there is no policies that forbid
AFRINIC or APNIC IP being used anywhere geographically before last /8
policy.

Chris, you are advocating an dictatorship RIR with absolute power over ISP
in its IP address usage(RIR decide where your network should be), you want
ISP submit itself to RIR for how to run their networks, you don't want
members make informed decision about voting of EC(because you don't want
them receive important candidates position and information), you want
exclude all members from even participate in this very important governance
discussion(because you said anyone have financial interest in APNIC is
excluded, I can only image that means all the members).

I think your point is clear here in the list.

Unfortunately for you, I believe most people who are in their right mind
about free internet would not agree with you.

You are still entitled to your view, of course.

As for arguing IP address is not internet service, is like arguing salt is
not cooking ingredients, internet just like cooking, made possible by many
layers of service, IP is just one of them.




On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 00:40, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Lu,
>
> So, what you're saying is that LARUS and Cloud Innovation aren't seeking
> to obtain IP resources with the sole intention of making a profit through
> leasing? If that's the case, would you care to explain why Cloud Innovation
> has obtained the resource holdings it does, with the vast majority (if not
> all of them) being used outside of the AFRINIC service region? Surely,
> they'd know that would have been in breach of AFRINIC's agreement to use
> them outside of the AFRINIC service region. A significant percentage of
> them are being used in the US and Hong Kong, which last time I checked are
> not serviced by AFRINIC.
>
> I'd be interested to know how you've come to the conclusion that "Leasing
> IP is certainly considered by all company registries as internet service in
> all countries", and what evidence you have to support this? How many
> countries exactly are LARUS and Cloud Innovation registered in? My view is
> rather clear, and I believe your statement that it does not constitute
> society consensus is incorrect. Have a look at the Google results (
> https://www.google.com.au/search?q=what+defines+an+internet+service+provider)
> for the search term "what defines an internet service provider", and you'll
> find every single organic search result on at least the first 5 pages
> defines an ISP as (or words to the effect of) "a company that provides
> access to the internet to both personal and business customers". Leasing IP
> space in itself does not provide access to the internet. Argue that I'm
> wrong.
>
> Who you are as a person in control of LARUS and Cloud Innovation,
> especially since you were a candidate for the last EC, does matter and is
> very relevant in these discussions regarding proposed by-law reforms, given
> your financial interests in these entities.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:36 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; apnic-talk <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>; m.ch...@larus.net 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi
>
> None of your statement about me or my company is factual, it’s simply
> deformation and misinformation.
>
> Leasing IP is certainly considered by all company registries as internet
> service in all countries, you can have your obscure view but that does not
> constitute society consensus.
>
> Who I am, or who are you, does not matter in this debate.
>
> What’s matter is the topic on hand, the governance of APNIC.
>
> Until you understand that, you are not contribut

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

So, what you're saying is that LARUS and Cloud Innovation aren't seeking to 
obtain IP resources with the sole intention of making a profit through leasing? 
If that's the case, would you care to explain why Cloud Innovation has obtained 
the resource holdings it does, with the vast majority (if not all of them) 
being used outside of the AFRINIC service region? Surely, they'd know that 
would have been in breach of AFRINIC's agreement to use them outside of the 
AFRINIC service region. A significant percentage of them are being used in the 
US and Hong Kong, which last time I checked are not serviced by AFRINIC.

I'd be interested to know how you've come to the conclusion that "Leasing IP is 
certainly considered by all company registries as internet service in all 
countries", and what evidence you have to support this? How many countries 
exactly are LARUS and Cloud Innovation registered in? My view is rather clear, 
and I believe your statement that it does not constitute society consensus is 
incorrect. Have a look at the Google results 
(https://www.google.com.au/search?q=what+defines+an+internet+service+provider) 
for the search term "what defines an internet service provider", and you'll 
find every single organic search result on at least the first 5 pages defines 
an ISP as (or words to the effect of) "a company that provides access to the 
internet to both personal and business customers". Leasing IP space in itself 
does not provide access to the internet. Argue that I'm wrong.

Who you are as a person in control of LARUS and Cloud Innovation, especially 
since you were a candidate for the last EC, does matter and is very relevant in 
these discussions regarding proposed by-law reforms, given your financial 
interests in these entities.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:36 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; apnic-talk 
; m.ch...@larus.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi

None of your statement about me or my company is factual, it’s simply 
deformation and misinformation.

Leasing IP is certainly considered by all company registries as internet 
service in all countries, you can have your obscure view but that does not 
constitute society consensus.

Who I am, or who are you, does not matter in this debate.

What’s matter is the topic on hand, the governance of APNIC.

Until you understand that, you are not contribute anything meaningful here.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:16 Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Lu,

While IP resources are used on the internet, leasing them isn't considered 
providing an "internet service".

I don't see how the exhaustion date of APNIC's allocation in correlation to 
your academic studies is relevant at all.

It's not a personal attack, it's stating nothing but factual public 
information. I am also quite capable of having a constructive debate with 
people who actually have something to debate, and when the topics are factual 
in nature.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 11:47 PM
To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>; 
apnic-talk mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>; 
m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

Leasing IP is part of internet service, what other service it could be? Food 
and beverage? LMAO.

What an assumption, a simple fact, APNIC runs out of IP address before I even 
finish my university, and I was not even living in APNIC region at that time 
because my university wasn’t in Asia.

Stop deformation and personal attacks.

Your arguement try to attack the person rather than debate the issue on hand 
means your inability to participate in constructive debate.


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:10 Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Lu,

It's amazing how you automatically assume that I've "hacked an RIR" to possibly 
obtain any information for an application you may or may not have had for 
internet number resources. I'm sure if (in the unlikely event I'm incorrect) 
you could and were eligible to hold resources from the APNIC service region, 
you would have well and truly by now.

In order to qualify for internet number resources from APNIC, a member must be 
able to demonstrate and prove their requirements, with (including but not 
limited to):

  *   Network plan or diagram(s)
  *   Copies of invoices or purchase receipt for the equipment your 
organization has acquired to support your deployment
  *   Signed copy of agreement or contract with service provider(s) to show you 
have Internet connectivit

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

JJ,

It's not my intention (or even attempt) to argue for the sake of arguing. 
You've presented your case for and against the propositions, and I've presented 
mine. I addressed your remarks in my original reply and when a number of people 
affiliated with LARUS jumped in on the chain, this is where things took a turn.

I do not believe that LARUS has any intention of safeguarding the interests of 
APNIC's members, as has been demonstrated with the case of Cloud Innovation Ltd 
v AFRINIC. If there was a genuine interest in safeguarding members' interests, 
they would not be jeopardising AFRINIC's ability to service its region by 
seeking injunction after injunction, leaving it without a CEO or board to 
govern the organisation, which actually harms all members within the region. As 
I've said and have done, I'm all for discussing reasonable topics regarding the 
bylaw amendments. I will, however, not entertain the arguments from 
organisations who have no bona fide reason for doing so and are baseless.

I definitely agree with Aftab - out of a service region which encompasses 56 
economies and a population of approximately 4.5 billion people, I too believe 
there is already a very large population on which we can draw from. Even if we 
were to look at 0.001% (45,000) people, that's still a massive number of people 
to look at for an executive council of 7 people.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Yap Jia Jun (JJ) 
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:11 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

The irritation arises from the apparent intention of someone to argue solely 
for the purpose of arguing, rather than genuinely proposing ideas that could 
benefit the members. I strongly advise you to invest some time in contemplating 
your statements. This is crucial to avoid straying beyond the bounds of 
relevant discourse within this APNIC bylaw reforms feedback and suggestion 
forum.

If your objective is to claim victory by incessantly presenting irrelevant 
viewpoints in this conversation, please proceed without restraint.

While my colleagues and I are dedicated to safeguarding the interest of the 
members, you are welcome to remain here and engage in endless and pointless 
arguments at your discretion.

JJ Yap


 On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:33:52 +0800 Christopher 
Hawker wrote 

Your frustration is your own doing and through no fault of anyone else. The 
information surrounding the requirements for companies limited by shares is 
already in the public domain and freely available on various Australian 
government websites. Information regarding APNIC's company registration is also 
public record, also available via the ASIC website. If you are unable to 
understand that then there's nothing more I can say.

Members don't have to purchase these documents. Generally speaking, if a member 
purchases documents and the purchase is in line with their business (which in 
most cases it would be, seeing as they are a member of the organisation for 
which they are purchasing the documents), they should be able to claim these 
costs as a tax deduction. It is worth noting that I am not a tax 
agent/practitioner, therefore this info is based on my own knowledge and not 
legal in nature.

You've shared your views (as you're entitled to do), however it doesn't mean I 
have to agree with them. Further, your frustration regarding my disagreement 
with your statements is your own doing.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: JJ mailto:j@larus.net>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:53 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> 
mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Christopher,

It is with mounting frustration that I find myself addressing the same points 
once again, as it seems my intended message has yet to be fully grasped. My 
intention remains clear: I advocate for APNIC to disclose the corporate 
documents or provide a comprehensive write-up elucidating the mentioned 
arrangement. However, it appears that my position is consistently misconstrued, 
leaving me increasingly exasperated.

I firmly believe that transparency should not come at the expense of burdening 
members who seek a deeper understanding in relation to the above. Your 
suggestion that each member should purchase corporate documents for 
comprehension has left me baffled, to say the least.

My earlier responses were never intended as mere criticism; rather, they were 
sincere attempts to contribute constructively. It is disheartening to see my 
intentions consistently misconstrued.

Furthermore, your continued allusion to supposed malicious accusations against 
our entity is rather bewildering. Such references seem unnecessary, given our 
collaborative efforts to enhance the welfare of APNIC’s

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi

None of your statement about me or my company is factual, it’s simply
deformation and misinformation.

Leasing IP is certainly considered by all company registries as internet
service in all countries, you can have your obscure view but that does not
constitute society consensus.

Who I am, or who are you, does not matter in this debate.

What’s matter is the topic on hand, the governance of APNIC.

Until you understand that, you are not contribute anything meaningful here.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:16 Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Lu,
>
> While IP resources are used on the internet, leasing them isn't considered
> providing an "internet service".
>
> I don't see how the exhaustion date of APNIC's allocation in correlation
> to your academic studies is relevant at all.
>
> It's not a personal attack, it's stating nothing but factual public
> information. I am also quite capable of having a constructive debate with
> people who actually have something to debate, and when the topics are
> factual in nature.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 11:47 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; apnic-talk <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>; m.ch...@larus.net 
>
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Leasing IP is part of internet service, what other service it could be?
> Food and beverage? LMAO.
>
> What an assumption, a simple fact, APNIC runs out of IP address before I
> even finish my university, and I was not even living in APNIC region at
> that time because my university wasn’t in Asia.
>
> Stop deformation and personal attacks.
>
> Your arguement try to attack the person rather than debate the issue on
> hand means your inability to participate in constructive debate.
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:10 Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Lu,
>
> It's amazing how you automatically assume that I've "hacked an RIR" to
> possibly obtain any information for an application you may or may not have
> had for internet number resources. I'm sure if (in the unlikely event I'm
> incorrect) you could and were eligible to hold resources from the APNIC
> service region, you would have well and truly by now.
>
> In order to qualify for internet number resources from APNIC, a member
> must be able to demonstrate and prove their requirements, with (including
> but not limited to):
>
>- Network plan or diagram(s)
>- Copies of invoices or purchase receipt for the equipment your
>organization has acquired to support your deployment
>- Signed copy of agreement or contract with service provider(s) to
>show you have Internet connectivity
>- Internet Exchange Point (IXP) peering agreement (if you are an IXP)
>- Internet Service Provider (ISP) / Telecommunications license
>- Other supporting documents to justify your resource needs
>
>
> Based on information contained on LARUS' website, it is very clear that
> LARUS cannot demonstrate a need for internet number resources from the
> APNIC service region. This is not "defamation", it is stating factual
> information that is available in the public domain. People don't need to
> "hack" an RIR to see this.
>
> Leasing out IP addresses does not provide an internet service, nor do you
> provide them as part of an internet service package (along with other
> services such as IP transit, international or domestic backhaul, etc).
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 10:39 PM
>
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Have you hacked an RIR and obtain it's member confidential application
> information?
>
> If not, how you make statement about my company's application in public,
> it's simply deformation.
>
> Providing IP is providing internet service btw, it's part of the package,
> it's not for you to define who should be part of eco system.
>
> Stop deformation.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:06, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my
> business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You
> obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.
>
>
> You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's
> need for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

While IP resources are used on the internet, leasing them isn't considered 
providing an "internet service".

I don't see how the exhaustion date of APNIC's allocation in correlation to 
your academic studies is relevant at all.

It's not a personal attack, it's stating nothing but factual public 
information. I am also quite capable of having a constructive debate with 
people who actually have something to debate, and when the topics are factual 
in nature.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 11:47 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; apnic-talk 
; m.ch...@larus.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

Leasing IP is part of internet service, what other service it could be? Food 
and beverage? LMAO.

What an assumption, a simple fact, APNIC runs out of IP address before I even 
finish my university, and I was not even living in APNIC region at that time 
because my university wasn’t in Asia.

Stop deformation and personal attacks.

Your arguement try to attack the person rather than debate the issue on hand 
means your inability to participate in constructive debate.


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:10 Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Lu,

It's amazing how you automatically assume that I've "hacked an RIR" to possibly 
obtain any information for an application you may or may not have had for 
internet number resources. I'm sure if (in the unlikely event I'm incorrect) 
you could and were eligible to hold resources from the APNIC service region, 
you would have well and truly by now.

In order to qualify for internet number resources from APNIC, a member must be 
able to demonstrate and prove their requirements, with (including but not 
limited to):

  *   Network plan or diagram(s)
  *   Copies of invoices or purchase receipt for the equipment your 
organization has acquired to support your deployment
  *   Signed copy of agreement or contract with service provider(s) to show you 
have Internet connectivity
  *   Internet Exchange Point (IXP) peering agreement (if you are an IXP)
  *   Internet Service Provider (ISP) / Telecommunications license
  *   Other supporting documents to justify your resource needs

Based on information contained on LARUS' website, it is very clear that LARUS 
cannot demonstrate a need for internet number resources from the APNIC service 
region. This is not "defamation", it is stating factual information that is 
available in the public domain. People don't need to "hack" an RIR to see this.

Leasing out IP addresses does not provide an internet service, nor do you 
provide them as part of an internet service package (along with other services 
such as IP transit, international or domestic backhaul, etc).

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:39 PM

To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>; 
m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>; apnic-talk 
mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

Have you hacked an RIR and obtain it's member confidential application 
information?

If not, how you make statement about my company's application in public, it's 
simply deformation.

Providing IP is providing internet service btw, it's part of the package, it's 
not for you to define who should be part of eco system.

Stop deformation.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:06, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my 
business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You 
obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.

You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's need 
for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a little different if 
you had purchased them from other holders but no, you went directly to the RIRs 
who provide these resources. The only reason you don't hold resources delegated 
by APNIC is because you don't have justification.

It's one thing to be against a council. It's a whole different story when you 
attempt to slander them and attempt to have policy and misinformation spread to 
people who don't know better. This is what people fight to prevent.

Someone can be against an RIR council, administration or other body and be for 
free internet. You on the other hand, are against the EC for your own personal 
agenda. Nothing you say will change my mind.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Yap Jia Jun (JJ)]

The irritation arises from the apparent intention of someone to 
argue solely for the purpose of arguing, rather than genuinely proposing ideas 
that could benefit the members. I strongly advise you to invest some time in 
contemplating your statements. This is crucial to avoid straying beyond the 
bounds of relevant discourse within this APNIC bylaw reforms feedback and 
suggestion forum.If your objective is to claim victory by incessantly 
presenting irrelevant viewpoints in this conversation, please proceed without 
restraint.While my colleagues and I are dedicated to safeguarding the interest 
of the members, you are welcome to remain here and engage in endless and 
pointless arguments at your discretion.JJ Yap On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 
21:33:52 +0800  Christopher Hawker wrote   
div.zm_-8996350573661082146_parse_-3077821681108991538 P { margin-top: 0; 
margin-bottom: 0 } 
 
 
 
Your frustration is your own doing and through no fault of anyone else. The 
information surrounding the requirements for companies limited by shares is 
already in the public domain and freely available on various Australian 
government websites. Information 
 regarding APNIC's company registration is also public record, also available 
via the ASIC website. If you are unable to understand that then there's nothing 
more I can say. 
 
 
 
 
Members don't have to purchase these documents. Generally speaking, if a member 
purchases documents and the purchase is in line with their business (which in 
most cases it would be, seeing as they are a member of the organisation for 
which they are purchasing 
 the documents), they should be able to claim these costs as a tax deduction. 
It is worth noting that I am not a tax agent/practitioner, therefore this info 
is based on my own knowledge and not legal in nature. 
 
 
 
 
You've shared your views (as you're entitled to do), however it doesn't mean I 
have to agree with them. Further, your frustration regarding my disagreement 
with your statements is your own doing. 
 
 
 
 
Regards, 
 
Christopher H. 
 
 
From: JJ  
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:53 PM 
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net  
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms 
  
 
 
Hi Christopher, 
 
It is with mounting frustration that I find myself addressing the same points 
once again, as it seems my intended message has yet to be fully grasped. My 
intention remains clear: I advocate for APNIC to disclose the corporate 
documents or provide a comprehensive 
 write-up elucidating the mentioned arrangement. However, it appears that my 
position is consistently misconstrued, leaving me increasingly exasperated. 
 
I firmly believe that transparency should not come at the expense of burdening 
members who seek a deeper understanding in relation to the above. Your 
suggestion that each member should purchase corporate documents for 
comprehension has left me baffled, to say 
 the least. 
 
My earlier responses were never intended as mere criticism; rather, they were 
sincere attempts to contribute constructively. It is disheartening to see my 
intentions consistently misconstrued. 
 
Furthermore, your continued allusion to supposed malicious accusations against 
our entity is rather bewildering. Such references seem unnecessary, given our 
collaborative efforts to enhance the welfare of APNIC’s members. My focus 
remains firmly on the broader 
 themes of transparency and legal compliance, and any misconceptions regarding 
individual (Paul’s) focus are unintended. 
 
The recurring cycle of disagreement without meaningful progress is frustrating, 
to say the least. I have previously communicated my viewpoint to you in various 
forms, hoping to bridge the understanding gap, yet it appears these efforts 
have yet to bear fruit. 
 
I eagerly anticipate your response (constructive), urging you to take all the 
time you need to thoroughly dissect my proposal before gracing me with your 
further input. 
 
Thanks. 
 
JJ Yap  
LARUS Limited 
___ 
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ 
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net 
 
 






___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

I don't believe it's appropriate for an organisation involved in litigation 
with an RIR from a different service region, to come into a discussion about 
proposed by-law amendments in another (especially when one of the proposals 
sets a restriction of preventing an organisation in current litigation with 
APNIC from joining the EC and subsequently becoming a director).

The "advises and constructive feedbacks" offered I believe is not genuine for 
the reasons I've previously mentioned. Even if it was and I was brushing it 
off, this does not constitute a personal attack. IP resources need not have 
once belonged to someone for the current holder to be called out for 
exploitation of those resources. Cloud Innovation and LARUS obtained these 
resources, with the sole intention of using them (and currently using them), 
outside of the AFRINIC service region. This is demonstrable through route views 
into resources held by Cloud Innovation. It's clear Cloud Innovation had and 
has no intention of using them within the AFRINIC service region.

While Cloud Innovation's current litigation with AFRINIC did indeed take place 
outside of the APNIC service region, the litigation nonetheless is against an 
RIR that in essence performs the same functions as APNIC. So it is indeed very 
relevant.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 11:09 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Hawker,

With all due respect you have let your ego gets in the way and digressed way 
too far from our original topic, the goal that we strive to achieve here is to 
make known to you all, higher up on the pedestal, what change does the member 
truly yearn for in the community, in hoping that the EC could listen to us 
better in addressing concerns we always have.

However, looking at the series of personal attacks you launched at us by 
brushing off our genuine advises and constructive feedbacks and even went as 
far as calling us out for exploiting resources that never once belonged to you 
in the first place? Who are you to be policing our actions when the matter 
happened outside of APNIC region and still pending final determination of the 
apex court of the Mauritius?

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Aftab Siddiqui]

So let me repeat..Approx 4.5 Billion Population (more than half of the
world population), 56 economies are 2 big enough reasons to end this
discussion but let's proceed, though no one mentioned race or ethnicity but
you brought that up so let me tell you It's almost impossible to provide an
exact number due to the fluid nature of ethnic identities keeping in mind
the vastness and complexity of the region. But, the number will be in the
thousands so as the languages these people speak. I'm not sure how much
more diversity is required to find the right candidate to lead a registry.

I agree that it's valuable to have diverse perspectives in leadership, but
let's not underestimate the incredible talents and potential that already
exist within the region, the region which is so huge that it may take more
than 15hrs non-stop flight to fly from one end to another. Embracing local
leadership doesn't mean we're closing doors to the world, it means we're
just recognizing and nurturing the expertise that's right here in our
backyard which is again half of the world. Anyone interested to support and
help this region and community can by all means come and collaborate with
us. If we can't find 7 honest, talented and committed leaders from our
region to lead the registry (yes, APNIC is just a registry and not solving
world hunger or poverty issues) then I guess we have bigger problems to
solve than discussing these petty issues.

This is kind of "we need an intervention from a saviour from outside"
ideology, because clearly, the region is just a barren wasteland devoid of
any capable leaders to strategically guide a "REGISTRY". But hey, who needs
a goldmine of potential when we can just keep looking elsewhere, right? May
be let's just move on from this point otherwise it's just a monologue to
the void. It's almost like practicing your speech to an imaginary audience.
Who knows, maybe the void will surprise you with a standing ovation one day.

Have a nice weekend.

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 16:22, Lu Heng  wrote:

> 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 
> 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 
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
>> *To:* m.ch...@larus.net 
>> *Cc:* Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk <
>> 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 
>> 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, 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

Leasing IP is part of internet service, what other service it could be?
Food and beverage? LMAO.

What an assumption, a simple fact, APNIC runs out of IP address before I
even finish my university, and I was not even living in APNIC region at
that time because my university wasn’t in Asia.

Stop deformation and personal attacks.

Your arguement try to attack the person rather than debate the issue on
hand means your inability to participate in constructive debate.


On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:10 Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Lu,
>
> It's amazing how you automatically assume that I've "hacked an RIR" to
> possibly obtain any information for an application you may or may not have
> had for internet number resources. I'm sure if (in the unlikely event I'm
> incorrect) you could and were eligible to hold resources from the APNIC
> service region, you would have well and truly by now.
>
> In order to qualify for internet number resources from APNIC, a member
> must be able to demonstrate and prove their requirements, with (including
> but not limited to):
>
>- Network plan or diagram(s)
>- Copies of invoices or purchase receipt for the equipment your
>organization has acquired to support your deployment
>- Signed copy of agreement or contract with service provider(s) to
>show you have Internet connectivity
>- Internet Exchange Point (IXP) peering agreement (if you are an IXP)
>- Internet Service Provider (ISP) / Telecommunications license
>- Other supporting documents to justify your resource needs
>
>
> Based on information contained on LARUS' website, it is very clear that
> LARUS cannot demonstrate a need for internet number resources from the
> APNIC service region. This is not "defamation", it is stating factual
> information that is available in the public domain. People don't need to
> "hack" an RIR to see this.
>
> Leasing out IP addresses does not provide an internet service, nor do you
> provide them as part of an internet service package (along with other
> services such as IP transit, international or domestic backhaul, etc).
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 10:39 PM
>
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> Have you hacked an RIR and obtain it's member confidential application
> information?
>
> If not, how you make statement about my company's application in public,
> it's simply deformation.
>
> Providing IP is providing internet service btw, it's part of the package,
> it's not for you to define who should be part of eco system.
>
> Stop deformation.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:06, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my
> business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You
> obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.
>
>
> You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's
> need for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a little
> different if you had purchased them from other holders but no, you went
> directly to the RIRs who provide these resources. The only reason you don't
> hold resources delegated by APNIC is because you don't have justification.
>
> It's one thing to be against a council. It's a whole different story when
> you attempt to slander them and attempt to have policy and misinformation
> spread to people who don't know better. This is what people fight to
> prevent.
>
> Someone can be against an RIR council, administration or other body and be
> for free internet. You on the other hand, are against the EC for your own
> personal agenda. Nothing you say will change my mind.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:46 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my business needed it
> at that time, just like any other ISP.
>
> Since providing IP is also part of providing connectivity, I don't see how
> your argument stands, you can not say cable providers, ISPs, submarine
> providers are not part of the ecosystem, the internet works because all of
> us are part of the ecosystem, but not excluding us just beca

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Your frustration is your own doing and through no fault of anyone else. The 
information surrounding the requirements for companies limited by shares is 
already in the public domain and freely available on various Australian 
government websites. Information regarding APNIC's company registration is also 
public record, also available via the ASIC website. If you are unable to 
understand that then there's nothing more I can say.

Members don't have to purchase these documents. Generally speaking, if a member 
purchases documents and the purchase is in line with their business (which in 
most cases it would be, seeing as they are a member of the organisation for 
which they are purchasing the documents), they should be able to claim these 
costs as a tax deduction. It is worth noting that I am not a tax 
agent/practitioner, therefore this info is based on my own knowledge and not 
legal in nature.

You've shared your views (as you're entitled to do), however it doesn't mean I 
have to agree with them. Further, your frustration regarding my disagreement 
with your statements is your own doing.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: JJ 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:53 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Christopher,

It is with mounting frustration that I find myself addressing the same points 
once again, as it seems my intended message has yet to be fully grasped. My 
intention remains clear: I advocate for APNIC to disclose the corporate 
documents or provide a comprehensive write-up elucidating the mentioned 
arrangement. However, it appears that my position is consistently misconstrued, 
leaving me increasingly exasperated.

I firmly believe that transparency should not come at the expense of burdening 
members who seek a deeper understanding in relation to the above. Your 
suggestion that each member should purchase corporate documents for 
comprehension has left me baffled, to say the least.

My earlier responses were never intended as mere criticism; rather, they were 
sincere attempts to contribute constructively. It is disheartening to see my 
intentions consistently misconstrued.

Furthermore, your continued allusion to supposed malicious accusations against 
our entity is rather bewildering. Such references seem unnecessary, given our 
collaborative efforts to enhance the welfare of APNIC’s members. My focus 
remains firmly on the broader themes of transparency and legal compliance, and 
any misconceptions regarding individual (Paul’s) focus are unintended.

The recurring cycle of disagreement without meaningful progress is frustrating, 
to say the least. I have previously communicated my viewpoint to you in various 
forms, hoping to bridge the understanding gap, yet it appears these efforts 
have yet to bear fruit.

I eagerly anticipate your response (constructive), urging you to take all the 
time you need to thoroughly dissect my proposal before gracing me with your 
further input.

Thanks.

JJ Yap
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

To refer to APNIC members as a "marginalized group for voicing out ... 
grievances" is beyond a joke. APNIC members so and share so much more.

It has already been explained that it is not in the interest of members to 
transition APNIC Pty Ltd to a company limited by guarantee. This is because it 
would require transfers of assets which would trigger a Capital Gains Tax (CGT) 
event resulting in a tax debt of about $30m AUD. If this were to happen, who do 
you think would end up paying for it?

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:43 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Hawker,

Incorporating another new entity to act as corporate trustee is akin to adding 
new wine to an old bottle, which does not really alter its original purpose. If 
APNIC is truly about reinventing the whole wheel, the entire structure has to 
be re-incorporated with a fresh board with revamped by-laws as a brand new 
public company, where every members hold a piece of shares and would not be 
sidelined as marginalized group for voicing out their grievances.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

It's amazing how you automatically assume that I've "hacked an RIR" to possibly 
obtain any information for an application you may or may not have had for 
internet number resources. I'm sure if (in the unlikely event I'm incorrect) 
you could and were eligible to hold resources from the APNIC service region, 
you would have well and truly by now.

In order to qualify for internet number resources from APNIC, a member must be 
able to demonstrate and prove their requirements, with (including but not 
limited to):

  *   Network plan or diagram(s)
  *   Copies of invoices or purchase receipt for the equipment your 
organization has acquired to support your deployment
  *   Signed copy of agreement or contract with service provider(s) to show you 
have Internet connectivity
  *   Internet Exchange Point (IXP) peering agreement (if you are an IXP)
  *   Internet Service Provider (ISP) / Telecommunications license
  *   Other supporting documents to justify your resource needs

Based on information contained on LARUS' website, it is very clear that LARUS 
cannot demonstrate a need for internet number resources from the APNIC service 
region. This is not "defamation", it is stating factual information that is 
available in the public domain. People don't need to "hack" an RIR to see this.

Leasing out IP addresses does not provide an internet service, nor do you 
provide them as part of an internet service package (along with other services 
such as IP transit, international or domestic backhaul, etc).

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:39 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net 
; apnic-talk 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

Have you hacked an RIR and obtain it's member confidential application 
information?

If not, how you make statement about my company's application in public, it's 
simply deformation.

Providing IP is providing internet service btw, it's part of the package, it's 
not for you to define who should be part of eco system.

Stop deformation.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:06, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my 
business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You 
obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.

You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's need 
for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a little different if 
you had purchased them from other holders but no, you went directly to the RIRs 
who provide these resources. The only reason you don't hold resources delegated 
by APNIC is because you don't have justification.

It's one thing to be against a council. It's a whole different story when you 
attempt to slander them and attempt to have policy and misinformation spread to 
people who don't know better. This is what people fight to prevent.

Someone can be against an RIR council, administration or other body and be for 
free internet. You on the other hand, are against the EC for your own personal 
agenda. Nothing you say will change my mind.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:46 PM
To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>; 
m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>; apnic-talk 
mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my business needed it at 
that time, just like any other ISP.

Since providing IP is also part of providing connectivity, I don't see how your 
argument stands, you can not say cable providers, ISPs, submarine providers are 
not part of the ecosystem, the internet works because all of us are part of the 
ecosystem, but not excluding us just because we only provide numbers.

Your argument basically says because someone is against the current 
administration so I am not for free internet. So according to that logic, every 
opposition in any country is against freedom, that is simply laughable, if that 
is not advocating for dictatorship, I don't know what is.

Again, the exact opposite is true here, because I am fighting corrupted RIR 
management which makes me one of the fighters for the freedom of the internet.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 18:28, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
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 servi

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker,

With all due respect you have let your ego gets in the way and digressed way 
too far from our original topic, the goal that we strive to achieve here is to 
make known to you all, higher up on the pedestal, what change does the member 
truly yearn for in the community, in hoping that the EC could listen to us 
better in addressing concerns we always have. 

However, looking at the series of personal attacks you launched at us by 
brushing off our genuine advises and constructive feedbacks and even went as 
far as calling us out for exploiting resources that never once belonged to you 
in the first place? Who are you to be policing our actions when the matter 
happened outside of APNIC region and still pending final determination of the 
apex court of the Mauritius?

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[JJ]

Hi Christopher,

It is with mounting frustration that I find myself addressing the same points 
once again, as it seems my intended message has yet to be fully grasped. My 
intention remains clear: I advocate for APNIC to disclose the corporate 
documents or provide a comprehensive write-up elucidating the mentioned 
arrangement. However, it appears that my position is consistently misconstrued, 
leaving me increasingly exasperated.

I firmly believe that transparency should not come at the expense of burdening 
members who seek a deeper understanding in relation to the above. Your 
suggestion that each member should purchase corporate documents for 
comprehension has left me baffled, to say the least.

My earlier responses were never intended as mere criticism; rather, they were 
sincere attempts to contribute constructively. It is disheartening to see my 
intentions consistently misconstrued.

Furthermore, your continued allusion to supposed malicious accusations against 
our entity is rather bewildering. Such references seem unnecessary, given our 
collaborative efforts to enhance the welfare of APNIC’s members. My focus 
remains firmly on the broader themes of transparency and legal compliance, and 
any misconceptions regarding individual (Paul’s) focus are unintended.

The recurring cycle of disagreement without meaningful progress is frustrating, 
to say the least. I have previously communicated my viewpoint to you in various 
forms, hoping to bridge the understanding gap, yet it appears these efforts 
have yet to bear fruit.

I eagerly anticipate your response (constructive), urging you to take all the 
time you need to thoroughly dissect my proposal before gracing me with your 
further input.

Thanks.

JJ Yap 
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

Incorporating another new entity to act as corporate trustee is akin to adding 
new wine to an old bottle, which does not really alter its original purpose. If 
APNIC is truly about reinventing the whole wheel, the entire structure has to 
be re-incorporated with a fresh board with revamped by-laws as a brand new 
public company, where every members hold a piece of shares and would not be 
sidelined as marginalized group for voicing out their grievances.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

Have you hacked an RIR and obtain it's member confidential application
information?

If not, how you make statement about my company's application in public,
it's simply deformation.

Providing IP is providing internet service btw, it's part of the package,
it's not for you to define who should be part of eco system.

Stop deformation.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 20:06, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my
> business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You
> obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.
>

> You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's
> need for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a little
> different if you had purchased them from other holders but no, you went
> directly to the RIRs who provide these resources. The only reason you don't
> hold resources delegated by APNIC is because you don't have justification.
>
> It's one thing to be against a council. It's a whole different story when
> you attempt to slander them and attempt to have policy and misinformation
> spread to people who don't know better. This is what people fight to
> prevent.
>
> Someone can be against an RIR council, administration or other body and be
> for free internet. You on the other hand, are against the EC for your own
> personal agenda. Nothing you say will change my mind.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:46 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi Chris:
>
> I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my business needed it
> at that time, just like any other ISP.
>
> Since providing IP is also part of providing connectivity, I don't see how
> your argument stands, you can not say cable providers, ISPs, submarine
> providers are not part of the ecosystem, the internet works because all of
> us are part of the ecosystem, but not excluding us just because we only
> provide numbers.
>
> Your argument basically says because someone is against the current
> administration so I am not for free internet. So according to that logic,
> every opposition in any country is against freedom, that is
> simply laughable, if that is not advocating for dictatorship, I don't know
> what is.
>
> Again, the exact opposite is true here, because I am fighting corrupted
> RIR management which makes me one of the fighters for the freedom of the
> internet.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 18:28, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> 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 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 7:37 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *S

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Hubert,

APNIC did not "finally disclose the Deed of Trust which [had] remained in 
obscurity for good 20 years". They established a non-profit body (APNIC EC 
Limited) to act as the corporate trustee of the single share in APNIC Pty Ltd. 
Prior to the current structure, the Director General acted as the trustee of 
the share in APNIC Pty Ltd, bound by a trust agreement which prohibited him 
from doing anything with it without approval of the EC.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:12 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Harker,

Well that one insignificant Associate member that you are talking 
condescendingly to, have succeeded in initiating calls for change and exert 
enough pressures for the almighty board of APNIC to finally disclose the Deed 
of Trust which has remained in obscurity for good 20 years, on the transparency 
page to ultimately benefitting other members at large.

If anything our real audiences here are the other RIRs to witness how an 
Associate member has the gumption and fortitude to bringing that to light, 
despite holding no resources within the APNIC service region.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Harker, 

Well that one insignificant Associate member that you are talking 
condescendingly to, have succeeded in initiating calls for change and exert 
enough pressures for the almighty board of APNIC to finally disclose the Deed 
of Trust which has remained in obscurity for good 20 years, on the transparency 
page to ultimately benefitting other members at large.

If anything our real audiences here are the other RIRs to witness how an 
Associate member has the gumption and fortitude to bringing that to light, 
despite holding no resources within the APNIC service region.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Your statement "I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my 
business needed it at that time" could not be further from the truth. You 
obtained them for the sole reason to monetize the IP resources themselves.

You do not provide internet services. You exploit the broader internet's need 
for resources for your own personal gain. Things would be a little different if 
you had purchased them from other holders but no, you went directly to the RIRs 
who provide these resources. The only reason you don't hold resources delegated 
by APNIC is because you don't have justification.

It's one thing to be against a council. It's a whole different story when you 
attempt to slander them and attempt to have policy and misinformation spread to 
people who don't know better. This is what people fight to prevent.

Someone can be against an RIR council, administration or other body and be for 
free internet. You on the other hand, are against the EC for your own personal 
agenda. Nothing you say will change my mind.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:46 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net 
; apnic-talk 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Chris:

I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my business needed it at 
that time, just like any other ISP.

Since providing IP is also part of providing connectivity, I don't see how your 
argument stands, you can not say cable providers, ISPs, submarine providers are 
not part of the ecosystem, the internet works because all of us are part of the 
ecosystem, but not excluding us just because we only provide numbers.

Your argument basically says because someone is against the current 
administration so I am not for free internet. So according to that logic, every 
opposition in any country is against freedom, that is simply laughable, if that 
is not advocating for dictatorship, I don't know what is.

Again, the exact opposite is true here, because I am fighting corrupted RIR 
management which makes me one of the fighters for the freedom of the internet.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 18:28, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
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 mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:37 PM
To: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>; 
m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>; apnic-talk 
mailto: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 bec

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

I believe that is a direct violation of the inclusion clause of CoC.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:55, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> We then have very different definitions of what is clear.
>
> Let's pretend for a minute that he did say he believe that you shouldn't
> be an APNIC member. It's called "freedom of speech", which is a basic human
> right.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:27 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Barry Raveendran Greene ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Hi
>
> I think his language is clear, not excluding other people but only me.
>
> If that does not warrant CoC enforcement I don't what will.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:25, Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> Lu,
>
> How you interpreted that Barry said you're not wanted as a community
> member from his e-mail is beyond belief. And then to call for the APNIC
> Secretariat to enforce a code of conduct for something you claim someone
> said (which they did not and even if they had wouldn't be a code of conduct
> violation) is laughable.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 PM
> *To:* Barry Raveendran Greene 
> *Cc:* m.ch...@larus.net ; apnic-talk <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Dear Barry:
>
> You mean you want to exclude me as a community member?
>
> APNIC secretary, can I have a code of conduct enforced here please.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:05, Barry Raveendran Greene 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng  wrote:
> >
> > You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like
> you will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and
> values, then we will start have divide in the internet, government will
> start to race to get hold power of this single power point of registration
> database, eventually a fall out of single internet.
>
> For those of us who have been around since the beginning …
>
> Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.
>
> This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU
> - YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU.
>
> If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have
> succeeded. The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see
> you as a threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the
> multitude of values in the community.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

We then have very different definitions of what is clear.

Let's pretend for a minute that he did say he believe that you shouldn't be an 
APNIC member. It's called "freedom of speech", which is a basic human right.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:27 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Barry Raveendran Greene ; m.ch...@larus.net 
; apnic-talk 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi

I think his language is clear, not excluding other people but only me.

If that does not warrant CoC enforcement I don't what will.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:25, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
Lu,

How you interpreted that Barry said you're not wanted as a community member 
from his e-mail is beyond belief. And then to call for the APNIC Secretariat to 
enforce a code of conduct for something you claim someone said (which they did 
not and even if they had wouldn't be a code of conduct violation) is laughable.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 PM
To: Barry Raveendran Greene mailto:bgre...@senki.org>>
Cc: m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>; apnic-talk 
mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>>
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Barry:

You mean you want to exclude me as a community member?

APNIC secretary, can I have a code of conduct enforced here please.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:05, Barry Raveendran Greene 
mailto:bgre...@senki.org>> wrote:


> On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng 
> mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> wrote:
>
> You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like you 
> will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and values, 
> then we will start have divide in the internet, government will start to race 
> to get hold power of this single power point of registration database, 
> eventually a fall out of single internet.

For those of us who have been around since the beginning …

Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.

This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU - 
YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU.

If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have succeeded. 
The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see you as a 
threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the multitude of 
values in the community.







--
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

If all members were to just see APNIC at its face value, based on the ASIC's 
search report,  then APNIC EC would be nothing but just a mere department of 
APNIC PTY LTD and whoever sitting on board would be puppets (for the lack of 
better term) controlled by the sole director and shareholder of the APNIC PTY 
LTD, and that observation, in reality, is just incorrect. 

Furthermore, if APNIC is truly about acting as gatekeeper or guardian of 
resources, its roles shall just be reduced to bookkeeper and not overstepping 
from its original function by imposing draconian rules upon members and decide 
on matters arbitrarily. Do not even get me started to question why APNIC, a 
self proclaimed "Not for Profit" organization, has to be incorporated under the 
business structure of a Private Limited Company by shares, where there are 
various other types of vehicle which are more apt in place.

Thank you for the embedded link which leads me to my next question, is APNIC 
now some sort of law enforcement authorities being vested with the power of 
investigation and adjudication, that allows him to prosecute anyone in its 
capacity of a Private Limited Company by shares in the Queensland?

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

JJ,

The "corporate secretarial documents that would substantiate this arrangement" 
can be purchased from https://www.asic.gov.au/ for a nominal fee of $10 AUD. 
They accept Visa and Mastercard.

Your communications are not "exclusively intended as constructive feedback and 
a well-considered suggestion", rather it is the ideology of one "Associate" 
member who holds no resources within the APNIC service region, thankfully to 
some well designed policies.

LARUS is in my view unfairly singling out Paul Wilson, without a justifiable 
(or even a logical) reason. You and others affiliated with LARUS has been 
provided on countless occasions all the relevant information (all of it public 
by the way) which demonstrates legal compliance. LARUS needs to, although they 
won't and have demonstrated never will, drop the thought process that Paul is 
the sole authority within APNIC as it's simply not the case. If anything, he 
ought to be commended for his contribution to internet governance throughout 
the years, and deserves public recognition.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: JJ 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:16 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Christopher,

I wish to reiterate my prior assertions (yet again) that our comprehension of 
Paul's imminent designation as a non-voting director, aligned with the 
imperative to fulfill Australia's resident directors stipulation, remains 
steadfast. However, please take note that my current proposition urges APNIC to 
augment transparency by divulging the pertinent corporate secretarial documents 
that would substantiate this arrangement and dispel potential uncertainties.

I MUST emphasize and it is imperative to underscore that this communication is 
exclusively intended as constructive feedback and a well-considered suggestion 
for APNIC's contemplation. I find myself somewhat perplexed by the opposing 
viewpoints exhibited by certain members, as our objective here is to 
collectively provide constructive feedbacks and suggestions to APNIC, 
ultimately for the benefit of the members.

Furthermore, I feel compelled to address an additional matter: the 
misconception that we are unfairly singling out Paul. I invite a thorough 
review of my earlier input, which should clarify that our concern pertains to 
the broader context of transparency and legal compliance, rather than any 
individual focus.

Thanks.

JJ Yap
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

I obtained a large portion of the IP address because my business needed it
at that time, just like any other ISP.

Since providing IP is also part of providing connectivity, I don't see how
your argument stands, you can not say cable providers, ISPs, submarine
providers are not part of the ecosystem, the internet works because all of
us are part of the ecosystem, but not excluding us just because we only
provide numbers.

Your argument basically says because someone is against the current
administration so I am not for free internet. So according to that logic,
every opposition in any country is against freedom, that is
simply laughable, if that is not advocating for dictatorship, I don't know
what is.

Again, the exact opposite is true here, because I am fighting corrupted RIR
management which makes me one of the fighters for the freedom of the
internet.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 18:28, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 7:37 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *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 
> 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 inter

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi

I think his language is clear, not excluding other people but only me.

If that does not warrant CoC enforcement I don't what will.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:25, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> Lu,
>
> How you interpreted that Barry said you're not wanted as a community
> member from his e-mail is beyond belief. And then to call for the APNIC
> Secretariat to enforce a code of conduct for something you claim someone
> said (which they did not and even if they had wouldn't be a code of conduct
> violation) is laughable.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 PM
> *To:* Barry Raveendran Greene 
> *Cc:* m.ch...@larus.net ; apnic-talk <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms
>
> Dear Barry:
>
> You mean you want to exclude me as a community member?
>
> APNIC secretary, can I have a code of conduct enforced here please.
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:05, Barry Raveendran Greene 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng  wrote:
> >
> > You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like
> you will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and
> values, then we will start have divide in the internet, government will
> start to race to get hold power of this single power point of registration
> database, eventually a fall out of single internet.
>
> For those of us who have been around since the beginning …
>
> Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.
>
> This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU
> - YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU.
>
> If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have
> succeeded. The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see
> you as a threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the
> multitude of values in the community.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> 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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Lu,

How you interpreted that Barry said you're not wanted as a community member 
from his e-mail is beyond belief. And then to call for the APNIC Secretariat to 
enforce a code of conduct for something you claim someone said (which they did 
not and even if they had wouldn't be a code of conduct violation) is laughable.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 PM
To: Barry Raveendran Greene 
Cc: m.ch...@larus.net ; apnic-talk 

Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Barry:

You mean you want to exclude me as a community member?

APNIC secretary, can I have a code of conduct enforced here please.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:05, Barry Raveendran Greene 
mailto:bgre...@senki.org>> wrote:


> On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng 
> mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>> wrote:
>
> You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like you 
> will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and values, 
> then we will start have divide in the internet, government will start to race 
> to get hold power of this single power point of registration database, 
> eventually a fall out of single internet.

For those of us who have been around since the beginning …

Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.

This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU - 
YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU.

If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have succeeded. 
The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see you as a 
threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the multitude of 
values in the community.







--
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[JJ]

Hi Christopher,

I wish to reiterate my prior assertions (yet again) that our comprehension of 
Paul's imminent designation as a non-voting director, aligned with the 
imperative to fulfill Australia's resident directors stipulation, remains 
steadfast. However, please take note that my current proposition urges APNIC to 
augment transparency by divulging the pertinent corporate secretarial documents 
that would substantiate this arrangement and dispel potential uncertainties.

I MUST emphasize and it is imperative to underscore that this communication is 
exclusively intended as constructive feedback and a well-considered suggestion 
for APNIC's contemplation. I find myself somewhat perplexed by the opposing 
viewpoints exhibited by certain members, as our objective here is to 
collectively provide constructive feedbacks and suggestions to APNIC, 
ultimately for the benefit of the members.

Furthermore, I feel compelled to address an additional matter: the 
misconception that we are unfairly singling out Paul. I invite a thorough 
review of my earlier input, which should clarify that our concern pertains to 
the broader context of transparency and legal compliance, rather than any 
individual focus.

Thanks.

JJ Yap
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Dear Barry:

You mean you want to exclude me as a community member?

APNIC secretary, can I have a code of conduct enforced here please.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 19:05, Barry Raveendran Greene 
wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng  wrote:
> >
> > You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like
> you will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and
> values, then we will start have divide in the internet, government will
> start to race to get hold power of this single power point of registration
> database, eventually a fall out of single internet.
>
> For those of us who have been around since the beginning …
>
> Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.
>
> This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU
> - YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU.
>
> If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have
> succeeded. The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see
> you as a threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the
> multitude of values in the community.
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

> On Aug 11, 2023, at 21:52, Lu Heng  wrote:
> 
> You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like you 
> will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and values, 
> then we will start have divide in the internet, government will start to race 
> to get hold power of this single power point of registration database, 
> eventually a fall out of single internet.

For those of us who have been around since the beginning …

Mr Lu, what you are “thinking” is not reflected in our community’s history.

This conversation threat is not “excluding people.”  It is reacting to YOU - 
YOUR BEHAVIOR - YOUR ATTITUDE - YOUR ATTACKING ANYONE WHO CHALLENGES YOU. 

If your goal is to influence policy in the APNIC community, you have succeeded. 
The number of people who challenge you will increase as they see you as a 
threat to multiple decades of policy consensus aligned to the multitude of 
values in the community. 

 



___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

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 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:37 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net 
; apnic-talk 
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 
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 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Rod:

You are exactly demonstrating the issue I am raising here, people like you
will start to attack and exclude people from different ideologies and
values, then we will start have divide in the internet, government will
start to race to get hold power of this single power point of registration
database, eventually a fall out of single internet.

The only solution is decentralization and diminishing the central power
point we currently have.

I personally believe nations are an obsolete concept that we as humans
should try not to bring into the digital world, and we have a real chance
to do so, I will be very sad to see if we fail and let the internet become
another battle ground for nationalism and seperationlism.

I have not lived in China for my whole adulthood, instead, I travel from
country to country almost on a weekly basis since I was 18, from what I
learn in the past decades of my travels,  I truly believe we humans share
more things in common than any of our differences.



On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 16:29, Rod Beck 
wrote:

> I am an impartial observer.
>
> Lu,
>
> Dubious groups have repeatedly tried to take over APNIC. And there is a
> suspicion that many of them are connected to dubious, authoritarian
> governments in the region. I have no problem with Taiwanese running APNIC.
> I think it is dangerous to let any mainland Chinese be involved for a very
> simple reason - the Chinese government is opposed to an open Internet
> because it puts strange ideas into people's heads that they have a right to
> choose their leaders and have certain inalienable political and civil
> rights. The great cyber wall of China is a good example of practice totally
> at odds with the spirit of the Internet.
>
> So please stop hiding behind the "we are one species" rhetoric.
>
> So there. I've said exactly what many are thinking but dare not say.
>
> Regards,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Roderick Beck
>
> Global Network Capacity Procurement
>
> Budapest:36-70-605-5144
>
> New Jersey: 908-452-8183
>
> Email: rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
>   <https://www.instagram.com/unitedcableco/>
> <https://twitter.com/unitedcableco>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/unitedcablecompany/>
> <https://unitedcablecompany.com/video>
>
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 8:22 AM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* m.ch...@larus.net ; apnic-talk <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* [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
> solu

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Hubert,

You clearly don't understand how APNIC was formed, who its predecessor was, and 
how it operated. You may also want to spend a few dollars to purchase copies of 
the documents from ASIC to see how the company was actually established. No 
"Declaration of Trust" was established/used/conceived/etc. in the formation of 
the entity that we know as APNIC Pty Ltd. Under Australian law, a Proprietary 
Company limited by Shares is a legal entity in its own right. You may wish to 
do some research into how companies operate and their legal status.

I don't believe I am "barking up the wrong tree", any tree, or even barking for 
that matter. Again, because you seem to have missed it, information held on the 
APNIC website is subject to copyright unless otherwise stated. 
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/bulk-access/copyright/ clearly 
states that copyright extends to the Whois database, and "Any use of this 
material to target advertising or similar activities is explicitly forbidden 
and will be prosecuted". If you're going to throw RocketReach under the bus, 
you (and LARUS) should do the right thing and report it to APNIC so that it can 
be investigated. Further, using information from third parties knowing it is in 
breach of copyright is as bad as directly obtaining it from the original source.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:43 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Hawker,

There is definitely more than it meets the eyes where one was to trace back its 
origin, and certainly a search on the register would not reveal much in depth 
details, especially when there was involvement of Declaration of Trust which 
governs the relationship between the Donor/Donee and ultimate beneficiaries, 
and FYI those information would not be shown in any reports produced by 
Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

It seems like you are barking up the wrong tree here as I never once dismiss 
the fact that there exists copyright protection for online materials on the 
website, and if there is really an infringement of copy right, the members who 
utilized such contacts (which was copied and reproduced by third party read: 
Rocketreach) should not be held liable for their actions.

We are merely relying on information that is available on the public sphere, I 
simply cannot stress that enough.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

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 
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 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 4:22 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net <
> m.ch...@larus.net>; apnic-talk 
> *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 com

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

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 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:22 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Aftab Siddiqui ; m.ch...@larus.net 
; apnic-talk 
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 
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 mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
To: m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>
Cc: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>; 
apnic-talk 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  
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 AP

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Rod Beck]

I am an impartial observer.

Lu,

Dubious groups have repeatedly tried to take over APNIC. And there is a 
suspicion that many of them are connected to dubious, authoritarian governments 
in the region. I have no problem with Taiwanese running APNIC. I think it is 
dangerous to let any mainland Chinese be involved for a very simple reason - 
the Chinese government is opposed to an open Internet because it puts strange 
ideas into people's heads that they have a right to choose their leaders and 
have certain inalienable political and civil rights. The great cyber wall of 
China is a good example of practice totally at odds with the spirit of the 
Internet.

So please stop hiding behind the "we are one species" rhetoric.

So there. I've said exactly what many are thinking but dare not say.

Regards,

R.


















































































































































































































































 
[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/2Lt_FJczBnPSUVs0JtgFSEE6fuziTBUYnu5DNq7DbaHJYMBySeKDNp6ky9fv2ZWitaRolkQMR0HSYAjjdUM-gPjMmFr6UnBhtrqwCia4-yVzmmqhyQtc-ad4xrS_rOVnPbkMDOFfh8OhRQhNA_O0QSw]

Roderick Beck

Global Network Capacity Procurement

Budapest:36-70-605-5144

New Jersey: 908-452-8183

Email: rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

www.unitedcablecompany.com<http://www.unitedcablecompany.com/>

  
[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/9R8wAqKpQlsGGeLxkitsOAGZIQucIAtkshtukANvmidSqz6q6w8bfgw1ayLaQLu77e2px7kf_Z-COzwKMwzoOaamiT8nQTWBY4SE5bJbgHvfBDpHFO2hot6tXqnoWYa3yY2p2l73e70mLuf930n9PKQ]
 <https://www.instagram.com/unitedcableco/> 
[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/hfZwsEtrU6zRgcl2B--cHNIQoviPy66lZXM-SPu-enHxzN4PTw-dn1561xJUY_PwXLBZrbwrbT5e8un3NttT_E4IMFTa65qHiW0AufGmGjEWhkMGr-zQWJ5y20Mp7aBfGzIJtB7U8u12DWutCGFr6go]
 <https://twitter.com/unitedcableco> 
[https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/QlM9Q72tZY7lyyTh46fFRX4812LGdtEnBEFfpd4m3ybv2msBvSJCsAwwjCBCeTVniXqGwoqGsmuerW9bZZ_VYsRzJ8gVPxQEWVPa82Rs5ELajVXrNnbFlGgi6SzxOjRHT8QPmtb3UhVs_YRmxQjY3Uo]
 <https://www.linkedin.com/company/unitedcablecompany/>   
[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/utA6pbJLZJpgC_rlNXfhviBHRjT4pyeShbRvycb8HG3_DFzbMXuo136B2hLqlphCvLhy2ZmnsrHMVAk-1hWpTRr3eDqQzfXT5VYftw_P8fzUbpgbmsVFnZf2WQVTsL97wpeVqRZbMOf7N95Eq4Up-as]
 <https://unitedcablecompany.com/video>


From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 8:22 AM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: m.ch...@larus.net ; apnic-talk 

Subject: [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 
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 mailto:aftab.siddi...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
To: m.ch...@larus.net<mailto:m.ch...@larus.net> 
mailto:m.ch...@larus.net>>
Cc: Christopher Hawker mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>>; 
apnic-talk 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  
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 me

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

There is definitely more than it meets the eyes where one was to trace back its 
origin, and certainly a search on the register would not reveal much in depth 
details, especially when there was involvement of Declaration of Trust which 
governs the relationship between the Donor/Donee and ultimate beneficiaries, 
and FYI those information would not be shown in any reports produced by 
Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

It seems like you are barking up the wrong tree here as I never once dismiss 
the fact that there exists copyright protection for online materials on the 
website, and if there is really an infringement of copy right, the members who 
utilized such contacts (which was copied and reproduced by third party read: 
Rocketreach) should not be held liable for their actions.

We are merely relying on information that is available on the public sphere, I 
simply cannot stress that enough. 

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Hubert,

If LARUS was fine with the prohibition on using Whois data in a manner that 
contravenes its intended purpose, then why did members with contact information 
listed in their Whois data and not anywhere else on the internet receive 
e-mails from LARUS candidates soliciting votes (allegedly) in exchange for 
remuneration and IP resources? This was found and proven by external auditors 
with no material interests in APNIC.

If there is contact information in the public domain, users of said data are 
still subject to relevant spam laws, including Australia's Spam Act 2003. APNIC 
holds the data and shares said data for to meet network operational 
requirements, not for candidates to use to campaign. LARUS can argue all they 
like that the information they used came from third-parties and not the Whois 
database - it's been proven wrong. When determining the measures that are taken 
to protect data, they have to weigh the pros and cons of sharing such 
information. This is why they only share the data necessary to contact relevant 
resource holders for issues such as network abuse. The argument "because it's 
available elsewhere means we can use the Whois database" is invalid.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 1:09 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Conrad,

It is good to see your names popping out here in the discussion as the last 
time I came across the same would be the time where the old Deed of Trust was 
publicized in the transparency page on APNIC website. If it weren't for your 
constant participation and input in internet topics, one would have assumed you 
have long retired after passing the baton to Paul Wilson 20 years ago.

We are fine with the rules set out by the commission in prohibiting the usage 
of whoisdata found in the disclosure system, but our contention has always been,

"what if, the data that is found in the disclosure system, which incidentally 
had also been published in other third party platforms? and since the contact 
details are not distinctively unique, plus neither APNIC holds any exclusive 
ownership over the pool of data, nor had they taken extra precautionary 
measures to limit the reproduction/replicate of data elsewhere; why shall the 
members who mean well be then prosecuted by merely relying on contacts details 
that are available in public sphere"

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Hubert,

The history of APNIC Pty Ltd is public record and available for anyone to 
purchase (for a nominal fee) from the Australian Securities and Investments 
Commission. Everything he has said is completely factual in every nature, and 
in my view weren't, to use your words, sweeping statements.

The way that APNIC may or may not have been operated in the past is exactly 
that - the past. I don't know why some people are so hung-up on the way it was, 
not the way it will be. Further, I cannot understand the fascination that LARUS 
has with Paul. It's been explained countless times that a single EC member 
(which again Paul is an ex-officio member) cannot make decisions as 
individuals, and that he only holds the position as a legal requirement of 
Australia's laws.

And for you to make the comment "there is no public documents who evidences 
APNIC PTY LTD's ownership on the said whoisdata" indicates that you don't 
understand how copyright works. If there is a news article on a news website, 
it doesn't mean that you can automatically copy the information and use it to 
further your own interests.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:49 PM
To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Dear Mr. Siddiqui,

If you are unsure of the origin or the incorporation history of any 
organization, it is best not to make any sweeping statement followed by IANAL 
in public forum as it will create disinformation and lead to confusion for 
uninitiated members.

Under the old structure, APNIC EC derives its function from the by laws which 
essentially was promulgated by APNIC PTY LTD, and could be in fact amended by 
the then sole director/shareholder (read: Paul Byron Wilson) with a stroke of 
pen. After calls of change have been instigated by APNIC's members (read: LARUS 
Limited), the Declaration of Trust has been made known after 20 years to shed 
lights on the intricate and complex relationship between entities and now we 
welcome any proposed changes of by-laws reforms which explains why we 
participate eagerly in any forums to make sure our voices are heard, and we 
remain hopeful to see changes being implemented in the not so distant future.

And to circle back to some of the points you raised, there is no public 
documents who evidences APNIC PTY LTD's ownership on the said whoisdata. FYI 
whoisdisclosure system is merely to facilitate the disclosure of registrant's 
information and no parties could claim or assert ownership/exclusive use over 
the pool of data.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

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 
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 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
> *To:* m.ch...@larus.net 
> *Cc:* Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk <
> 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 
> 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
>


-- 
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

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 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 9:12 AM
To: m.ch...@larus.net 
Cc: Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk 

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

Hi Melvin,

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 07:00, Melvin Cheng  
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Conrad, 

It is good to see your names popping out here in the discussion as the last 
time I came across the same would be the time where the old Deed of Trust was 
publicized in the transparency page on APNIC website. If it weren't for your 
constant participation and input in internet topics, one would have assumed you 
have long retired after passing the baton to Paul Wilson 20 years ago.

We are fine with the rules set out by the commission in prohibiting the usage 
of whoisdata found in the disclosure system, but our contention has always 
been, 

"what if, the data that is found in the disclosure system, which incidentally 
had also been published in other third party platforms? and since the contact 
details are not distinctively unique, plus neither APNIC holds any exclusive 
ownership over the pool of data, nor had they taken extra precautionary 
measures to limit the reproduction/replicate of data elsewhere; why shall the 
members who mean well be then prosecuted by merely relying on contacts details 
that are available in public sphere"

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Siddiqui,

If you are unsure of the origin or the incorporation history of any 
organization, it is best not to make any sweeping statement followed by IANAL 
in public forum as it will create disinformation and lead to confusion for 
uninitiated members. 

Under the old structure, APNIC EC derives its function from the by laws which 
essentially was promulgated by APNIC PTY LTD, and could be in fact amended by 
the then sole director/shareholder (read: Paul Byron Wilson) with a stroke of 
pen. After calls of change have been instigated by APNIC's members (read: LARUS 
Limited), the Declaration of Trust has been made known after 20 years to shed 
lights on the intricate and complex relationship between entities and now we 
welcome any proposed changes of by-laws reforms which explains why we 
participate eagerly in any forums to make sure our voices are heard, and we 
remain hopeful to see changes being implemented in the not so distant future.

And to circle back to some of the points you raised, there is no public 
documents who evidences APNIC PTY LTD's ownership on the said whoisdata. FYI 
whoisdisclosure system is merely to facilitate the disclosure of registrant's 
information and no parties could claim or assert ownership/exclusive use over 
the pool of data.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[David Conrad]

On Aug 10, 2023, at 6:16 AM, Dilip Kounmany  wrote:
> If candidates are reaching out to members during the election period, I don't 
> see any issue with it.

Presumably you are familiar with the term “spam” as it applies to electronic 
communication.

> I'm a bit unclear about what you're opposing here.


Not to speak for Christopher, but you may want to review 
http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html, in particular, the sentence:

"Any use of this material to target advertising or similar activities is 
explicitly forbidden and will be prosecuted.”

I’m a bit unclear why you're pretending using contacts from the APNIC database 
for spam should be acceptable to the community.

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi Melvin,

On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 07:00, Melvin Cheng 
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Ole Jacobsen via APNIC-talk]

Hi,

Imagine for a moment that you are working for a company in the process of hiring
a new employee. Any reasonable hiring process would involve performing some kind
of background check, verification of details etc.

Would you hire a person who is in active litigation with your company? 

Of course you wouldn't! Not only would there be the obvious conflict of 
interest,
you'd be asking yourself about motivation. Does this new employee seek to get
"inside" to gain more information in order to support their litigation?

Now please tell me why "hiring" (electing) directors of your company is any
different.

Thanks.

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacob...@me.com
E-mail: o...@protocoljournal.org







___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Dilip Kounmany]

Hello Chris,

Greetings to you. I'm an active "CD-room" member from the past, looks
today's discussion has been quite lively. I've noticed you're quite the
contrarian, and that adds an interesting dimension.

I couldn't agree more with the sentiment that “Being a member of an
association means you default agree to participate in its governance
process”

This is especially vital in a bottom-up community, where members must
engage fully in all aspects, including elections.

If candidates are reaching out to members during the election period, I
don't see any issue with it.

In fact, I greatly appreciate the effort candidates invest in connecting
with us, all 9,510 members.

Frankly speaking, in our lifetime, who hasn't received a call or been
connected with candidate during a government election?

I'm a bit unclear about what you're opposing here.

Best regards,
Dlilip

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 4:34 AM Christopher H  wrote:

> Hi Lu,
>
> Being contacted by candidates is not a membership obligation. Members do
> not "default agree" to receiving unsolicited communications from EC
> candidates using information from an operational database as a condition of
> membership. There is no argument to be had.
>
> It's not the RIR's responsibility to build a marketing database for
> candidates to use to push their election manifestos. Should an individual
> wish to become a candidate, the onus is on them to do their own research,
> maintain their own contact list and raise their reasoning as to why they
> should be elected. The APNIC Whois database is "provided purely for
> operational purposes" and "not to be used for commercial or marketing
> purposes" (ref: https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/).
> Electioneering would fall under the marketing category.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> ___
> APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
>
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Vivien]

Dear colleagues,

Below is my feedback for the proposed law reform.



While there are concerns and issues in most of the sections, I will focus on 
the most problematic section 6. I have concerns over the legitimacy of the 
so-called “election oversight”.



The situation here is like this: 

The ECs are proposing these bylaw changes for election. 

The ECs are proposing they will be “responsible for the establishment of an 
Electoral Committee”, who will, seemingly have the final decision power of 
whether a candidate is eligible for the election. 

In other words, the ECs will have the power to indirectly decide who will be 
the final candidates via deciding the members of the Electoral Committee.



There are 4 main issues here: 

1)The ECs are setting 6 sections of bylaw changes to “limit” the scope of 
potential candidates, but they give NO clear definition/information of how they 
will pick the Electoral Committee. The only criteria mentioned is “The 
Electoral Committee may consist of such number of people, or an independent 
organisation, as the APNIC EC considers appropriate in the circumstances.”. 

2) Why will the EC think it is fair to set tons of requirements for the 
candidates, but there is no need to do so for the electoral committee? 

3)Why do the ECs think they are so omnipotent that they can easily pick the 
perfect electoral committees, but the community members are so blind that they 
only have the sense to choose the right candidates after the list has been 
‘filtered” by the electoral committees? 

4) How can the ECs ensure that, without clear definitions and guidelines, they 
can choose the right electoral committee who will act in the interest of the 
community, but not that of the ECs? 



What is purely ridiculous, about this proposed changes, is that under the new 
system, the ECs  seem to assume they are omnipotent, bright, and careful enough 
to choose the right people, while assuming the rest of the community is just a 
bunch of imbeciles that don’t even have the sense of being able to figure out 
who is worth their votes. 



It is talking about the community - the ECs are seemingly inviting for 
community discussion, while also bringing in the “corporate” dimension into 
discussion - e.g. 

“Individuals who are currently involved in litigation with APNIC or who 
represent a company, organisation, or related body corporate of such, which is 
currently involved in litigation with APNIC.”



APNIC the community, is not a legal entity. It is not a commercial firm, nor a 
pretend-to-be-NGO which has been technically owned by 1 person. It is a 
COMMUNITY. How can a COMMUNITY, without any legal entity, to be able to involve 
itself in litigation? 

​

If that doesn’t concern the community, how is the “no litigation” criteria even 
be relevant to be included in the first place? 



>From the above I can only draw the conclusion that the ECs are proposing a 
>BYLAWS for none but their own interests, I do not see how this proposal can 
>make the election fairer or more representative. It puts on a facade of “fair 
>and open” election, while in fact itself doubting the whole idea - the value - 
>of the so-called community.



Best,
Viv P.







 On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:34:13 +0900 Christopher H   
wrote ---



Hi Lu, 
 
Being contacted by candidates is not a membership obligation. Members do not 
"default agree" to receiving unsolicited communications from EC candidates 
using information from an operational database as a condition of membership. 
There is no argument to be had. 
 
It's not the RIR's responsibility to build a marketing database for candidates 
to use to push their election manifestos. Should an individual wish to become a 
candidate, the onus is on them to do their own research, maintain their own 
contact list and raise their reasoning as to why they should be elected. The 
APNIC Whois database is "provided purely for operational purposes" and "not to 
be used for commercial or marketing purposes" (ref: 
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/). Electioneering would fall under 
the marketing category. 
 
Regards, 
Christopher H. 
___ 
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ 
To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[JJ]

Hi Christopher, 

I appreciate your acknowledgment that the EC's decisions are geared towards the 
collective benefit of all members and the overall advancement of the internet 
across the APNIC service region. My suggestion is rooted in the desire to 
fortify member protections in the event that the EC's actions are perceived as 
acting in bad faith. Adopting a proactive stance to potential risks is a 
prudent step to ensure a secure operational environment.

To provide further clarity regarding the proposed bylaw reforms concerning 
individuals with ongoing litigation being ineligible for EC candidacy, my 
objective is not to advocate for or exert influence over APNIC's adoption of an 
injunction procedure. Instead, my aim is to offer a hypothetical scenario that 
illustrates how a member might uphold their rights in the event of a legal 
violation by APNIC. For instance, envision a situation where suspicions arise 
about the EC plotting to unjustly disqualify a candidate. While I recognize 
that this particular scenario might not have immediate relevance, it 
underscores the importance of preemptively addressing potential challenges.

Regarding the Cloud Innovation and AFRINIC cases, if anything, the cases 
highlight member's ability to assert their rights when confronting unfavorable 
decisions. It demonstrates how members can effectively stand up for their 
interests when facing challenges. In essence, my suggestion seeks to emphasize 
that an individual with valid reasons for upholding their rights should not be 
disqualified from pursuing EC candidacy.

Concerning my statement of "the intention behind advocating for increased 
engagement is to foster a transparent and accountable electoral process," my 
intention is to propose an expansion of the code of conduct's scope. This 
proposed augmentation would serve to clarify acceptable behaviors for 
candidates during election campaigns, ultimately benefiting both candidates and 
APNIC by mitigating potential conflicts and ensuring a fair electoral process.

Further, I wish to reiterate my understanding that the resident director 
requirements are public information. My aim is to enhance the level of 
transparency and disclosure from APNIC's side, particularly for the benefit of 
members who may not have immediate access to such documents.

Best,

JJ Yap 
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Melvin Cheng]

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.



Regarding the objective of preventing board stacking through multiple nominees 
from one organization, I hold a differing opinion. Allowing multiple nominees 
can enhance diverse representation and thought within the EC. I also believe 
that community input is crucial, as it offers a holistic perspective, ensuring 
the proposal strikes the right balance between preventing undue influence and 
promoting fair participation. Your insights into past elections underscore the 
significance of this matter, and I'm eager to explore how community engagement 
could enhance this proposal's effectiveness. I would greatly value your 
thoughts on this.



While I understand the goal of preventing conflicts of interest, we must be 
cautious about potential misuse, especially in cases where the EC might act in 
bad faith. Concerns raised about using this provision to remove opponents hold 
validity and merit careful consideration.



While individuals have the right to initiate legal actions, the question arises 
about the intent behind restricting this freedom in the proposed bylaw reform. 
If the principle is to allow legal conflict resolution, limiting EC eligibility 
based on ongoing litigation seems counterintuitive.



As my colleague suggested, a balanced approach could involve clear and 
comprehensive guidelines to address conflict of interest scenarios. This would 
effectively prevent undue influence while preserving candidates' rights and the 
democratic process.



Regarding Mr. Paul Wilson's appointment as resident director, I concur on the 
importance of upholding legal obligations. However, my colleagues and I 
emphasize transparently disclosing relevant information, along with its 
requirements, to the public.



Thank you.

MC






 On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 20:34:15 -0700 Christopher H   
wrote ---



Melvin, 
 
I agree with proposal 1 in its current form. If someone wishes to run as a 
candidate for the EC, they should reside within the service region and be 
actively involved in APNIC's activities. I see no additional benefit in 
allowing people from economies not within the APNIC service region from joining 
the EC, as they have their own RIRs they can be involved with should they 
choose to do so. 
 
In relation to proposal 2, I believe this is aimed at organisations who 
nominate multiple individuals from the same company, organisation or related 
bodies corporate from sitting on the EC. This is inherently designed to prevent 
organisations from attempting to "stack the board", which in my view and belief 
was attempted and ultimately failed during the last election. I'm not sure 
where community input would be required based on the current proposal wording. 
 
With your reply to proposal 3, human rights have absolutely nothing to do with 
the matter. People are free to commence litigation if they feel they have the 
right to do so, and APNIC and the EC are not preventing people from doing so. 
What proposal 3 is intending to do (based on my understanding - I welcome 
corrections if I'm wrong), is prevent people from organisations currently 
involved in litigation with APNIC Pty Ltd from becoming candidates and serving 
on the EC, as all EC members are directors of APNIC Pty Ltd. Using the example 
from my earlier reply to your colleague, it would be a conflict of interest for 
John Citizen to be working with an organisation involved in litigation, and 
then becoming a director of the company they are in litigation with. 
 
I believe that bylaw amendments should be put to a vote of members. The EC can 
put forward recommendations to bylaw changes and the member base can vote on 
them. After all, APNIC is run for the benefit of members and not that of the 
EC. 
 
As has always been the case, Paul serves as an ex-officio member of the EC, to 
satisfy the ASIC minimum on-shore director requirement, of at least one 
director of the company residing within Australia. I don't see an issue with 
this. 
 
Regards, 
Christopher H. 
___ 
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ 
To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear APNIC Community,
Hope this email finds you in good health!

...i'm only commenting to thank Christopher
 for standing at least for me; hoping that a
great part of the community would recognised
 on its welcomed & much appreciated words.

Christopher, while reading your replies, i feel
as the INRS (Internet Numbers Registry
System) [*] is still strongly supported...
__
[*]: 

...just continue your good job, please.
It's definitely time to stand up for the INRS,
for our regional RIRs, for the Internet core
values and for the Community rights.

Thanks once more, for doing this, brother!

Shalom,
--sb.


Le jeu. 10 août 2023 à 02:46, Christopher H Christopher H <
ch...@thesysadmin.dev> a écrit :

> Hello JJ,
>
> (1) When you say that consideration should be given on "restricting the
> authority to amend bylaws within the jurisdiction of EC members" are you
> suggesting that the EC should not be able to make decisions that affect
> their home economy? If this is the case, I don't believe that it is
> necessary to do so, as APNIC members have voted for the EC members,
> indicating a level of trust in their decision-making. In response to
> allowing members to engage with candidates, I am of the understanding that
> they are free to do so as long as it is within the Code of Conduct and not
> utilising Whois data from the APNIC Whois database to do so, something
> which certain companies are known to do, among other things.
>
> (2) It's been in place for as long as I can remember. It is a requirement
> set by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (the statutory
> government body in Australia that manages company registrations) that at
> least one company director be a resident of Australia. In the structure of
> APNIC, the EC are the directors of APNIC, and Paul serves as an ex-officio
> member to meet this requirement. Please see
> https://asic.gov.au/for-business/registering-a-company/steps-to-register-a-company/minimum-officeholders/
> where it reads under the sub-heading "Proprietary companies" the line "A
> proprietary company must have at least one director. That director must
> live in Australia."
>
> (3) I believe they have been quite clear in the proposed concept for
> corporate diversity. Effectively, no single organisation, corporation or
> related bodies corporate can have more than one EC member serving. This is
> designed to prevent the council from being stacked with members from one
> organisation that may have a conflict of interest.
>
> I strongly support the suggested exclusion of candidates who have pending
> or current litigation with APNIC, and I feel this should extend to any RIR
> recognised by IANA. For a candidate to be affiliated with an organisation
> responsible for bringing litigation against APNIC and then attempt to join
> the EC (who act as directors) is the textbook definition of a conflict of
> interest and most definitely not in the public interest. Your comment that
> "this proposition raises substantial concerns about potential misuse,
> suppression of opposition, and erosion of democratic values" is completely
> wrong in every definition. Allow me to explain why.
>
> Let's use Company XYZ Pty Ltd as our example organisation. They bring
> forward litigation against APNIC Pty Ltd due to a decision made by the EC
> which Company XYZ believes has a negative financial impact on their
> business. To be a member of the EC makes you a director of APNIC Pty Ltd,
> which would create a conflict of interest if an employee of Company XYZ Pty
> Ltd were to become a member of the EC.
>
> To so much as to even infer that members of the EC would bring forth
> litigation in order to prevent people from becoming candidates is (for want
> of a better word) appalling. The current members of the EC are
> well-regarded within the community and have demonstrated that they can be
> trusted in operating as a member of the EC. Their support was demonstrated
> by the number of votes they received at the last election. I believe the
> current wording should stand as-is without any amendments.
>
> For proposal 4, what would determine what is considered a breach of
> conduct?
>
> Regarding your comment on proposal 6, I believe the current wording is
> suitable. They have addressed any potential issues surrounding impartiality
> with members of the Electoral Committee being chosen by EC members not
> contesting the election.
>
> Open to discussions on the above.
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher Hawker.
> [...]



-- 

Best Regards !
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] |cmNOG's Structure
|cmNOG's Surveys

Subscribe to the cmNOG's Mailing List

__


*#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec
vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*»‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau.
#Chrétiennement‬«*Comme une biche soupire après des 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Aftab Siddiqui]

Hi hubert,
IANAL but IMO, APNIC is an Australian Pty Ltd and maintains whois data of
Australian organisations as well, please read the Spam Act. The unsolicited
calls your (alleged) sister concern NRS did last time were annoying and I
don't want to receive them.

Regards

Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 19:24, Hubert  wrote:

> Dear Mr. Hawker,
>
> the particular code of conduct where member is precluded from reaching
> out/communicate with members whose contact can be found in whoisdata, is
> simply archaic, rigid and over onerous.
>
> In this day and age, a data could easily be replicated and reproduced
> elsewhere in other platforms. The likes of rocketreach would also be
> storing and publishing the same data found in APNIC whois database, so a
> member who relies on data found in public platform and communicates to one
> another for the strict campaigning purpose of sharing election manifestos
> should not be deemed to be in breach of the codes of conducts, as the chain
> of data transfer process between the entities fails to be established.
>
> There has also been talks by Paul McGrady in GNSO council meeting 2023
> about the problems in encouraging registrar to participate in the whois
> disclosure system, and he emphasised on the difference between
> virtue/compliance and the obligation to provide contact information. It is
> a tall order but an achievable one so the question one shall ponder would
> be, does APNIC have gone extra miles in implementing a foolproof system so
> to speak, in ensuring the data collected in whois will be held in secrecy
> and not to be replicated by any third parties.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hubert
> ___
> APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
>
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher Hawker]

Hello Melvin,

The allowance of multiple nominees from a single organisation will not enhance 
diverse representation as it's not likely that multiple nominees from the same 
organisation will accurately represent the member base, rather it will give 
them a pathway to modify policy which may benefit the organisation which they 
come from. 6 of the 13 candidates from the last EC election came either 
directly from LARUS or known associated entities. Given that LARUS' sole 
objective is to obtain IP resource holdings and then lease them, I don't 
believe that LARUS stacking the EC is in the best interest of members.

The restriction imposed by point E under Proposal 3 isn't designed to prevent 
or limit one's right to commence litigation proceedings. It is the textbook 
definition of a "conflict of interest" for (as an example) John Doe to be a 
director of Company A Pty Ltd and Company B Pty Ltd, if Company A commences 
litigation against Company B. An EC member is a director of APNIC Pty Ltd. 
Therefore (as I've previously said) it is an inherent conflict of interest, 
that cannot be appropriately managed or mitigated, for an individual affiliated 
with an organisation currently involved in litigation to be nominated and 
elected to the EC.

I believe all information relevant to Paul's position has already been 
transparently disclosed. Again, the requirements are publicly available on the 
ASIC website. Here's the link again, in case you missed it earlier: 
https://asic.gov.au/for-business/registering-a-company/steps-to-register-a-company/minimum-officeholders/.

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Melvin Cheng 
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:31 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: apnic-talk 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

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.

Regarding the objective of preventing board stacking through multiple nominees 
from one organization, I hold a differing opinion. Allowing multiple nominees 
can enhance diverse representation and thought within the EC. I also believe 
that community input is crucial, as it offers a holistic perspective, ensuring 
the proposal strikes the right balance between preventing undue influence and 
promoting fair participation. Your insights into past elections underscore the 
significance of this matter, and I'm eager to explore how community engagement 
could enhance this proposal's effectiveness. I would greatly value your 
thoughts on this.

While I understand the goal of preventing conflicts of interest, we must be 
cautious about potential misuse, especially in cases where the EC might act in 
bad faith. Concerns raised about using this provision to remove opponents hold 
validity and merit careful consideration.

While individuals have the right to initiate legal actions, the question arises 
about the intent behind restricting this freedom in the proposed bylaw reform. 
If the principle is to allow legal conflict resolution, limiting EC eligibility 
based on ongoing litigation seems counterintuitive.

As my colleague suggested, a balanced approach could involve clear and 
comprehensive guidelines to address conflict of interest scenarios. This would 
effectively prevent undue influence while preserving candidates' rights and the 
democratic process.

Regarding Mr. Paul Wilson's appointment as resident director, I concur on the 
importance of upholding legal obligations. However, my colleagues and I 
emphasize transparently disclosing relevant information, along with its 
requirements, to the public.

Thank you.
MC



 On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 20:34:15 -0700 Christopher H  
wrote ---

Melvin,

I agree with proposal 1 in its current form. If someone wishes to run as a 
candidate for the EC, they should reside within the service region and be 
actively involved in APNIC's activities. I see no additional benefit in 
allowing people from economies not within the APNIC service region from joining 
the EC, as they have their own RIRs they can be involved with should they 
choose to do so.

In relation to proposal 2, I believe this is aimed at organisations who 
nominate multiple individuals from the same company, organisation or related 
bodies corporate from sitting on the EC. This is inherently designed to prevent 
organisations from attempting

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

Governance matters are an obligation of a membership, just like it is your
obligation as a nation's citizen to vote for your leaders, it's basic
democracy 101.

Governance matters are not marketing, don't confuse political discussion
with commercial operation, EC is a vunleary position.

Being a member of an association means you default agree to participate in
its governance process, that includes understanding the candidate's
position and views.

It is RIR's responsibility to provide ways for its governance process to
operate in a way that all participants are engaged.

Unless of course, you are avocate for an authoritarian regime where rights
to vote is prohibited.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 19:34, Christopher H  wrote:

> Hi Lu,
>
> Being contacted by candidates is not a membership obligation. Members do
> not "default agree" to receiving unsolicited communications from EC
> candidates using information from an operational database as a condition of
> membership. There is no argument to be had.
>
> It's not the RIR's responsibility to build a marketing database for
> candidates to use to push their election manifestos. Should an individual
> wish to become a candidate, the onus is on them to do their own research,
> maintain their own contact list and raise their reasoning as to why they
> should be elected. The APNIC Whois database is "provided purely for
> operational purposes" and "not to be used for commercial or marketing
> purposes" (ref: https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/).
> Electioneering would fall under the marketing category.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> ___
> APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
>


-- 
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher H]

Hi Lu,

Being contacted by candidates is not a membership obligation. Members do not 
"default agree" to receiving unsolicited communications from EC candidates 
using information from an operational database as a condition of membership. 
There is no argument to be had.

It's not the RIR's responsibility to build a marketing database for candidates 
to use to push their election manifestos. Should an individual wish to become a 
candidate, the onus is on them to do their own research, maintain their own 
contact list and raise their reasoning as to why they should be elected. The 
APNIC Whois database is "provided purely for operational purposes" and "not to 
be used for commercial or marketing purposes" (ref: 
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/using-whois/). Electioneering would fall under 
the marketing category.

Regards,
Christopher H.
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

I would argue being contacted by candidates is part of your membership
obligation, if you wish to surrender your rights to vote, you are free to
do so and noted to APNIC nad rest of membership, but if you choice to vote
for candidates, in a democratic society, you in default agree to be
contacted by candidates and understand their positions.

Of course voting rights to APNIC EC is more of a political decision rather
than technical one, I think it is better advised for APNIC to require
members to provide a governance contact Email so everyone knows where to
reach out to while there is a governance issue that needs to be discussed.
Including Elections, petitions, or any other governance change members feel
the need to raise.

Ignorance and silence often have a greater cost to democracy than anything
else.


On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 18:51, Christopher H  wrote:

> Hello Hubert,
>
> > the particular code of conduct where member is precluded from reaching
> out/communicate with members whose contact can be found in whoisdata, is
> simply archaic, rigid and over onerous.
>
> I disagree. The Whois system is designed to be a platform in which network
> operators can see who is responsible for a particular AS number or prefix
> allocation, as well as provide contact information so if network A has an
> issue with network B, they can contact each other. It's not designed (and
> shouldn't be) used as a marketing or campaigning tool.
>
> > a member who relies on data found in public platform and communicates to
> one another for the strict campaigning purpose of sharing election
> manifestos should not be deemed to be in breach of the codes of conducts
>
> Larissa Santos (a LARUS employee) was found to have breached section 8(d)
> of the Code of Conduct for Executive Council Election Nominees. She (or
> someone on her behalf) had directly contacted a member for the purpose of
> electioneering using information which was highly unlikely to be obtained
> from any source other than the APNIC Member list or Whois data, of which
> both datasources are prohibited from being used for the purpose in which
> they were. This breach was determined by an external auditor and not by
> APNIC (ref:
> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Transparency_statement.pdf
> ).
>
> Just because there are external sources such as RocketReach that provide
> contact information for people that may (or may not be Members), doesn't
> grant the right for Whois data to be used for the purpose of electioneering.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> ___
> APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
> To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
>


-- 
--
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Lu Heng]

Hi Chris:

Your statement about LARUS and Cloud Innovation is simply
misinformation and it is not true. Cloud Innovation, like every other ISP,
obtains the IP address that fully complies with community made policy.

While due to sub judice rules I am not able to future comment on any
ongoing litigations, I think it is worth a discussion here with some
misconception and a bigger picture that is unrelated to my litigation with
AFRINIC.

Marketization and secondary market formation in light of exhaustion of any
resources is the natural evolution of human society, market has been proven
to be probably one and only functional method to fairly distribute
resources where it is not infine.

The alternative is a central distribution mechanism in which a centralized
body task with access needs each individual cooperation, history of the
20th century has told us such a centralized model is an idea subject to
corruption, power grab, as well as inefficiency. It also contradicts the
very fundamentals of the internet where its core structure is
decentralized.

And a decade after commercialization of IP addresses, I think it is little
too late to discuss "is commerilization good for the internet", we have
long crossed that bridge.

Rather, the problem here is RIR has turned from a simple technical solution
provider to a central power point potentially vulnerable to power grab, and
some 20ish policy specialists claim to have power make policies that take
away registrations that are worth billions of dollars, or even have the
ability to make policies that disconnect entire nation's internet.

This is a dangerous huge power that no single nation or company
should possess, the temporary solution is what I have been champaign in the
last election and I am glad the current EC have partly acted on it, to make
APNIC governance structure better that return power to its members.

But with changing world order, different values and options cross vast
global, the only and true solution to have one internet that accessible to
all humans, is to decentralize the registration database, let members truly
own their registration, without single power point to grab, we return RIR
back to a simple technical solution provider, and this is what it was
founded for.

The alternative is to have different governments come after RIRs and racing
to get control, the end results of such is obvious, we will no longer have
one internet but many, as we should never expect all 200 countries to agree
to single value.

We have reached a historical turning power, and I truly wish the community
will stand by one internet that is accessible by all.



On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 18:06, Christopher H  wrote:

> Hello JJ,
>
> > allowing members to file injunctions against APNIC is ... to provide a
> legal avenue for members to protect their rights in cases where decisions
> may adversely affect their interests.
>
> The EC don't make decisions for the benefit of one member, they make
> decisions that benefit ALL members, and for the betterment of the internet
> as a whole across the APNIC service region. This includes APNIC terminating
> memberships which are in breach of their policies. For an injunction to be
> granted, it would have to pass some form of a merit test. In the case of an
> injunction being granted against APNIC to prevent them from implementing
> some form of change, I imagine the Australian court system would review the
> sections of the constitution which are relevant and what policies or
> agreements may or may not have been breached.
>
> Let's use the case of Cloud Innovation Ltd vs AFRINIC as a test case.
> Cloud Innovation were successful in seeking an interim injunction
> preventing AFRINIC from terminating the Registration Service Agreement
> between AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation Ltd, due to a breach of the RSA
> (deceptively obtaining IP resources with the intention of usage outside of
> the AFRINIC service region). Cloud Innovation sought an injunction
> preventing AFRINIC from terminating the RSA which was temporarily granted,
> however was subsequently set aside on 07 July 2021. Cloud Innovation
> appealed against the judgement and lost (ref:
> https://www.afrinic.net/ast/case9-judgement.pdf).
>
> Since 24 March 2021, Cloud Innovation and LARUS have brought forth against
> AFRINIC 13 Applications for Injunctions and another 22 court proceedings
> for a number of reasons (ref: https://www.afrinic.net/court-cases). As
> LARUS and Cloud Innovation are IP leasing organisations and do not operate
> (to my knowledge) their own networks for the purpose of providing services
> (such as IP transit, web hosting, internet services, etc.) there is no
> justifiable reason to obtain resources, apart from attempting to monetise
> them. It is worth noting, that IP resources are for businesses to use as a
> tool to derive revenue (such as selling a web hosting service which
> inherently requires an IP address), not be obtained from an RIR with the
> sole 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher H]

Hello Hubert,

> the particular code of conduct where member is precluded from reaching 
> out/communicate with members whose contact can be found in whoisdata, is 
> simply archaic, rigid and over onerous.

I disagree. The Whois system is designed to be a platform in which network 
operators can see who is responsible for a particular AS number or prefix 
allocation, as well as provide contact information so if network A has an issue 
with network B, they can contact each other. It's not designed (and shouldn't 
be) used as a marketing or campaigning tool.

> a member who relies on data found in public platform and communicates to one 
> another for the strict campaigning purpose of sharing election manifestos 
> should not be deemed to be in breach of the codes of conducts

Larissa Santos (a LARUS employee) was found to have breached section 8(d) of 
the Code of Conduct for Executive Council Election Nominees. She (or someone on 
her behalf) had directly contacted a member for the purpose of electioneering 
using information which was highly unlikely to be obtained from any source 
other than the APNIC Member list or Whois data, of which both datasources are 
prohibited from being used for the purpose in which they were. This breach was 
determined by an external auditor and not by APNIC (ref: 
https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Transparency_statement.pdf).

Just because there are external sources such as RocketReach that provide 
contact information for people that may (or may not be Members), doesn't grant 
the right for Whois data to be used for the purpose of electioneering.

Regards,
Christopher H.
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher H]

Hello JJ,

> allowing members to file injunctions against APNIC is ... to provide a legal 
> avenue for members to protect their rights in cases where decisions may 
> adversely affect their interests.

The EC don't make decisions for the benefit of one member, they make decisions 
that benefit ALL members, and for the betterment of the internet as a whole 
across the APNIC service region. This includes APNIC terminating memberships 
which are in breach of their policies. For an injunction to be granted, it 
would have to pass some form of a merit test. In the case of an injunction 
being granted against APNIC to prevent them from implementing some form of 
change, I imagine the Australian court system would review the sections of the 
constitution which are relevant and what policies or agreements may or may not 
have been breached.

Let's use the case of Cloud Innovation Ltd vs AFRINIC as a test case. Cloud 
Innovation were successful in seeking an interim injunction preventing AFRINIC 
from terminating the Registration Service Agreement between AFRINIC and Cloud 
Innovation Ltd, due to a breach of the RSA (deceptively obtaining IP resources 
with the intention of usage outside of the AFRINIC service region). Cloud 
Innovation sought an injunction preventing AFRINIC from terminating the RSA 
which was temporarily granted, however was subsequently set aside on 07 July 
2021. Cloud Innovation appealed against the judgement and lost (ref: 
https://www.afrinic.net/ast/case9-judgement.pdf).

Since 24 March 2021, Cloud Innovation and LARUS have brought forth against 
AFRINIC 13 Applications for Injunctions and another 22 court proceedings for a 
number of reasons (ref: https://www.afrinic.net/court-cases). As LARUS and 
Cloud Innovation are IP leasing organisations and do not operate (to my 
knowledge) their own networks for the purpose of providing services (such as IP 
transit, web hosting, internet services, etc.) there is no justifiable reason 
to obtain resources, apart from attempting to monetise them. It is worth 
noting, that IP resources are for businesses to use as a tool to derive revenue 
(such as selling a web hosting service which inherently requires an IP 
address), not be obtained from an RIR with the sole intention of leasing them 
out.

> the intention behind advocating for increased engagement is to foster a 
> transparent and accountable electoral process

Candidates are permitted to campaign for votes to the EC, provided it is done 
so in accordance with policies and guidelines, including the Code of Conduct 
(which a candidate had intentionally breached during the last EC election).

> I recommend that APNIC takes proactive steps to provide its members with 
> detailed information about the laws that govern the resident directors

Information regarding the requirements for an Australian proprietary company 
limited by shares is publicly available on the Australian Securities and 
Investments Commission website, which I linked to in my last reply. I don't 
feel it's necessary for APNIC to put out a document to expressly state that 
Paul is a director to satisfy the requirement of a resident director.

> proposing an extension of the scope to include breaches of conduct by 
> pertinent organizations

I agree, it could even be extended to prevent organisations from submitting or 
nominating candidates where others from that same organisation have verifiably 
breached the EC Election Code of Conduct...

> have the electoral committee led by a retired judge or an individual with an 
> equivalent standing

How do you propose this person be selected, by whom, how long would they serve, 
etc?

Regards,
Christopher H.
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Hubert]

Dear Mr. Hawker, 

the particular code of conduct where member is precluded from reaching 
out/communicate with members whose contact can be found in whoisdata, is simply 
archaic, rigid and over onerous. 

In this day and age, a data could easily be replicated and reproduced elsewhere 
in other platforms. The likes of rocketreach would also be storing and 
publishing the same data found in APNIC whois database, so a member who relies 
on data found in public platform and communicates to one another for the strict 
campaigning purpose of sharing election manifestos should not be deemed to be 
in breach of the codes of conducts, as the chain of data transfer process 
between the entities fails to be established.

There has also been talks by Paul McGrady in GNSO council meeting 2023 about 
the problems in encouraging registrar to participate in the whois disclosure 
system, and he emphasised on the difference between virtue/compliance and the 
obligation to provide contact information. It is a tall order but an achievable 
one so the question one shall ponder would be, does APNIC have gone extra miles 
in implementing a foolproof system so to speak, in ensuring the data collected 
in whois will be held in secrecy and not to be replicated by any third parties.

Regards,

Hubert
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Okoli Jesusson]

Dear colleagues,



I hope this email finds you well.



I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the Proposed By-law Reforms. 
In particular, proposal 6, which grants extensive powers to the APNIC EC with 
regards to overseeing elections. While the intention may be to ensure fair and 
responsible elections, I believe this concept raises significant issues that 
need to be carefully considered.



My first major concern is the concentration of power within the Electoral 
Committee. Granting the Electoral Committee sole authority over nominee 
eligibility concentrates power with a small group of individuals. And if 
history has taught us anything, it's that power corrupts. The last thing APNIC 
needs right now is a situation where the EC becomes a gatekeeper and thereby 
controls who can and cannot stand for election.



Furthermore, the lack of transparency and accountability in this process is 
also troubling. Without accountability, the EC can run amok with it's 
decision-making.



These are just some of the issues so far that the community can run into with 
such proposals. In reality, I truly believe the proposals are well-intentioned. 
However, it requires significant revision to address the aforementioned 
concerns. We must do our best to ensure that we have an inclusive, transparent, 
and accountable election process which represents the values of the APNIC 
community.



Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to further 
discussions and collaboration to ensure a robust and fair electoral process.



Best regards,

Jason

NRS






 On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:37:56 +0800 Melvin Cheng 
 wrote ---



Dear community 

I trust this communication finds you all in good health.



I am writing to convey my perspective on APNIC's recently proposed bylaw 
reforms. I commend the organization's dedication to improving its governance, 
and I firmly believe that constructive dialogue is imperative for fostering a 
stronger community.



Addressing Proposal 1, I am puzzled by the suggested limitations on EC 
memberships, particularly those linked to residency within the APNIC region. 
The essence of the internet is boundless, transcending borders. It seems 
counterintuitive to prevent international talent from contributing to APNIC.



Moving to Corporate Diversity, how is APNIC actively seeking input from its 
community concerning potential limitations on talent and the resulting impact 
on representation and expertise? How can stakeholders be genuinely engaged in 
shaping the implementation of these constraints?



Within Proposal 3 – Conflicts of Interest, the fundamental human right of 
access to justice comes into play. APNIC's proposal to bar individuals engaged 
in litigation from standing for election raises concerns about its alignment 
with human rights principles. Could this be seen as obstructing legitimate 
legal action and accountability? This aspect does not appear logical to me.


Turning to feedback on the governance structure:



Addressing ambiguity in new bylaw proposals is crucial. Defining subjective 
elements clearly is advised to align with APNIC's core principles of clarity, 
diversity, and inclusion. 
Comprehensive guidelines would ensure informed and cohesive decision-making 
processes.



It's crucial to limit bylaw amendments to EC members and only in extraordinary 
circumstances. To safeguard members' legal rights, enabling them to file 
injunctions against APNIC when necessary is recommended. 
APNIC must learn from past issues and ensure transparent engagement with 
candidates during elections through an updated code of conduct, promoting 
accountability and members' interests.



Regarding the appointment of non-voting directors, such as Mr. Paul Wilson, 
APNIC should provide more details for clarity. This additional information 
would enhance understanding of roles and potential outcomes, ensuring 
transparency and accountability.



There remain unanswered queries and unclear facets within the new bylaw 
changes, indicating that a unanimous consensus from the community might still 
be lacking.



I firmly believe that these comments and insights will make a positive 
contribution to the ongoing discourse and refinement of APNIC's bylaw 
revisions. I express deep gratitude for considering these perspectives and 
eagerly anticipate the continued advancement of APNIC's governance and 
operational realms.

Regards
MC








 On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 06:18:18 -0700 JJ JJ  wrote ---











___ 
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ 
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-leave@lists.apnic.netDear 
colleagues, 
 
I hope this message finds all of you well. 
 
I am writing to provide comments and feedback on the recent proposed bylaw 
reforms by APNIC. I appreciate the organization's commitment to enhancing its 
governance and operational processes, and 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher H]

Melvin,

I agree with proposal 1 in its current form. If someone wishes to run as a 
candidate for the EC, they should reside within the service region and be 
actively involved in APNIC's activities. I see no additional benefit in 
allowing people from economies not within the APNIC service region from joining 
the EC, as they have their own RIRs they can be involved with should they 
choose to do so.

In relation to proposal 2, I believe this is aimed at organisations who 
nominate multiple individuals from the same company, organisation or related 
bodies corporate from sitting on the EC. This is inherently designed to prevent 
organisations from attempting to "stack the board", which in my view and belief 
was attempted and ultimately failed during the last election. I'm not sure 
where community input would be required based on the current proposal wording.

With your reply to proposal 3, human rights have absolutely nothing to do with 
the matter. People are free to commence litigation if they feel they have the 
right to do so, and APNIC and the EC are not preventing people from doing so. 
What proposal 3 is intending to do (based on my understanding - I welcome 
corrections if I'm wrong), is prevent people from organisations currently 
involved in litigation with APNIC Pty Ltd from becoming candidates and serving 
on the EC, as all EC members are directors of APNIC Pty Ltd. Using the example 
from my earlier reply to your colleague, it would be a conflict of interest for 
John Citizen to be working with an organisation involved in litigation, and 
then becoming a director of the company they are in litigation with.

I believe that bylaw amendments should be put to a vote of members. The EC can 
put forward recommendations to bylaw changes and the member base can vote on 
them. After all, APNIC is run for the benefit of members and not that of the EC.

As has always been the case, Paul serves as an ex-officio member of the EC, to 
satisfy the ASIC minimum on-shore director requirement, of at least one 
director of the company residing within Australia. I don't see an issue with 
this.

Regards,
Christopher H.
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[JJ]

Hi Christopher, 

I appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the important matters I raised 
regarding the governance and transparency of APNIC.

Pertaining to (1),   I understand your perspective on the issue of restricting 
the authority to amend bylaws within the jurisdiction of EC members, and I'd 
like to provide some considerations that support this recommendation.

While it's true that EC members are elected by APNIC members and entrusted with 
decision-making responsibilities, it's also essential to maintain a balance 
between their authority and the protection of members' legal rights. By 
reserving the power to amend bylaws exclusively for extraordinary and emergency 
situations, we can ensure that any changes made align with the organization's 
fundamental values and objectives, thereby safeguarding the interests of all 
stakeholders.

Moreover, allowing members to file injunctions against APNIC is not meant to 
undermine the authority of EC members, but rather to provide a legal avenue for 
members to protect their rights in cases where decisions may adversely affect 
their interests. This provision can serve as a last resort to address 
situations where normal governance processes might not adequately address a 
member's concerns. A carefully crafted injunction mechanism can strike a 
balance between respecting EC decision-making and upholding members' legal 
remedies.

Regarding member engagement with candidates during election campaigns, I 
appreciate your clarification on the utilization of Whois data. However, the 
intention behind advocating for increased engagement is to foster a transparent 
and accountable electoral process. By revising the code of conduct to 
facilitate meaningful interactions between members and candidates, APNIC can 
ensure that the election process is not only fair but also enhances the 
diversity of perspectives and expertise within the organization.

Pertaining to (2) and (3), thank you for your clarification, however, I 
recommend that APNIC takes proactive steps to provide its members with detailed 
information about the laws that govern the resident directors and the specific 
terms and definitions within those laws. This information can be presented in a 
clear and accessible format, such as through official documents, guidelines, or 
resources that are easily accessible to all members.

Pertaining to (4), APNIC has put forward the idea of encompassing financial 
misconduct and fraud in its proposals. I would like to build upon this 
suggestion by proposing an extension of the scope to include breaches of 
conduct by pertinent organizations as well. This broader scope would ensure 
that APNIC's governance framework not only addresses financial integrity but 
also promotes ethical behavior and adherence to conduct standards across the 
organization and its affiliations.

Regarding to my feedback on Proposal 6, of course, we should applaud APNIC for 
such proposal, in addition to it, my suggestion is to have the electoral 
committee led by a retired judge or an individual with an equivalent standing. 
This would serve to enhance the promotion of optimal electoral practices and 
standards.

Look forward to clarifying your doubts, should you have any. 

Best regards,
JJ Yap
LARUS Limited
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Melvin Cheng]

Dear community 

I trust this communication finds you all in good health.



I am writing to convey my perspective on APNIC's recently proposed bylaw 
reforms. I commend the organization's dedication to improving its governance, 
and I firmly believe that constructive dialogue is imperative for fostering a 
stronger community.



Addressing Proposal 1, I am puzzled by the suggested limitations on EC 
memberships, particularly those linked to residency within the APNIC region. 
The essence of the internet is boundless, transcending borders. It seems 
counterintuitive to prevent international talent from contributing to APNIC.



Moving to Corporate Diversity, how is APNIC actively seeking input from its 
community concerning potential limitations on talent and the resulting impact 
on representation and expertise? How can stakeholders be genuinely engaged in 
shaping the implementation of these constraints?



Within Proposal 3 – Conflicts of Interest, the fundamental human right of 
access to justice comes into play. APNIC's proposal to bar individuals engaged 
in litigation from standing for election raises concerns about its alignment 
with human rights principles. Could this be seen as obstructing legitimate 
legal action and accountability? This aspect does not appear logical to me.


Turning to feedback on the governance structure:



Addressing ambiguity in new bylaw proposals is crucial. Defining subjective 
elements clearly is advised to align with APNIC's core principles of clarity, 
diversity, and inclusion. 
Comprehensive guidelines would ensure informed and cohesive decision-making 
processes.



It's crucial to limit bylaw amendments to EC members and only in extraordinary 
circumstances. To safeguard members' legal rights, enabling them to file 
injunctions against APNIC when necessary is recommended. 
APNIC must learn from past issues and ensure transparent engagement with 
candidates during elections through an updated code of conduct, promoting 
accountability and members' interests.



Regarding the appointment of non-voting directors, such as Mr. Paul Wilson, 
APNIC should provide more details for clarity. This additional information 
would enhance understanding of roles and potential outcomes, ensuring 
transparency and accountability.



There remain unanswered queries and unclear facets within the new bylaw 
changes, indicating that a unanimous consensus from the community might still 
be lacking.



I firmly believe that these comments and insights will make a positive 
contribution to the ongoing discourse and refinement of APNIC's bylaw 
revisions. I express deep gratitude for considering these perspectives and 
eagerly anticipate the continued advancement of APNIC's governance and 
operational realms.

Regards
MC








 On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 06:18:18 -0700 JJ JJ  wrote ---



Dear colleagues, 
 
I hope this message finds all of you well. 
 
I am writing to provide comments and feedback on the recent proposed bylaw 
reforms by APNIC. I appreciate the organization's commitment to enhancing its 
governance and operational processes, and I believe that constructive dialogue 
is essential for fostering a stronger and more inclusive community. 
 
General Comments and Feedback: 
(1) It is imperative to consider restricting the authority to amend bylaws 
within the jurisdiction of EC members, reserving this power exclusively for 
extraordinary and emergency situations. To ensure the protection of members' 
legal rights and remedies, I recommend the provision for members to file 
injunctions against APNIC when necessary. Currently, the limited connection 
between members and the organization's bylaws hampers their ability to assert 
their legal rights in court. Drawing from the lessons learned from other 
organizations, it is vital for APNIC to engage in a thorough review and 
prevention of similar issues. Furthermore, prioritizing transparency and 
accessibility, I strongly advocate for allowing members to actively engage with 
candidates during election campaigns, facilitated by a revised code of conduct. 
This measure would contribute to a robust and accountable electoral process, 
while safeguarding the best interests of APNIC's members. 
 
(2) With regard to the proposed appointment of non-voting directors as resident 
directors, including the esteemed Mr. Paul Wilson, I recommend that APNIC 
furnish additional details in relation to the aforesaid to provide better 
clarity to the members. Expanding on this information would enhance our 
understanding of the roles and potential implications of these appointments, 
ensuring greater transparency and accountability. 
 
(3) It is essential to emphasize the significance of addressing the current 
ambiguity surrounding subjective elements in the new bylaw proposals. To 
prevent any inadvertent contradictions with APNIC's foundational principles of 
clarity, diversity, and inclusion, I strongly advise that these elements be 
clearly 

[apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms

[Christopher H Christopher H]

Hello JJ,

(1) When you say that consideration should be given on "restricting the 
authority to amend bylaws within the jurisdiction of EC members" are you 
suggesting that the EC should not be able to make decisions that affect their 
home economy? If this is the case, I don't believe that it is necessary to do 
so, as APNIC members have voted for the EC members, indicating a level of trust 
in their decision-making. In response to allowing members to engage with 
candidates, I am of the understanding that they are free to do so as long as it 
is within the Code of Conduct and not utilising Whois data from the APNIC Whois 
database to do so, something which certain companies are known to do, among 
other things.

(2) It's been in place for as long as I can remember. It is a requirement set 
by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (the statutory 
government body in Australia that manages company registrations) that at least 
one company director be a resident of Australia. In the structure of APNIC, the 
EC are the directors of APNIC, and Paul serves as an ex-officio member to meet 
this requirement. Please see 
https://asic.gov.au/for-business/registering-a-company/steps-to-register-a-company/minimum-officeholders/
 where it reads under the sub-heading "Proprietary companies" the line "A 
proprietary company must have at least one director. That director must live in 
Australia."

(3) I believe they have been quite clear in the proposed concept for corporate 
diversity. Effectively, no single organisation, corporation or related bodies 
corporate can have more than one EC member serving. This is designed to prevent 
the council from being stacked with members from one organisation that may have 
a conflict of interest.

I strongly support the suggested exclusion of candidates who have pending or 
current litigation with APNIC, and I feel this should extend to any RIR 
recognised by IANA. For a candidate to be affiliated with an organisation 
responsible for bringing litigation against APNIC and then attempt to join the 
EC (who act as directors) is the textbook definition of a conflict of interest 
and most definitely not in the public interest. Your comment that "this 
proposition raises substantial concerns about potential misuse, suppression of 
opposition, and erosion of democratic values" is completely wrong in every 
definition. Allow me to explain why.

Let's use Company XYZ Pty Ltd as our example organisation. They bring forward 
litigation against APNIC Pty Ltd due to a decision made by the EC which Company 
XYZ believes has a negative financial impact on their business. To be a member 
of the EC makes you a director of APNIC Pty Ltd, which would create a conflict 
of interest if an employee of Company XYZ Pty Ltd were to become a member of 
the EC.

To so much as to even infer that members of the EC would bring forth litigation 
in order to prevent people from becoming candidates is (for want of a better 
word) appalling. The current members of the EC are well-regarded within the 
community and have demonstrated that they can be trusted in operating as a 
member of the EC. Their support was demonstrated by the number of votes they 
received at the last election. I believe the current wording should stand as-is 
without any amendments.

For proposal 4, what would determine what is considered a breach of conduct?

Regarding your comment on proposal 6, I believe the current wording is 
suitable. They have addressed any potential issues surrounding impartiality 
with members of the Electoral Committee being chosen by EC members not 
contesting the election.

Open to discussions on the above.

Thanks,
Christopher Hawker.
___
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net