Dear all,
Just want the clarify that, my company is support this policy. Is it still keep
discuss at the next meeting or what ?
And also, will APNIC to develop a better online vote system in the next meeting
for voting this policy ?
Best Regards,
Ernest TsePacswitch Globe Telecom Ltd.// Web: http://www.pacswitch.com// Tel:
+852-21570550//Mobile: +852-62536678//Skype: codesixs
On Thu, 02/03/2017 16.25, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear Community:
Craig’s email opens as a community email addressing “Colleagues”, but later on
the tone changes as he is not referring to me but addressing me by changing to
“you” and “your organisation”
Logic of the whole event was, APNIC staff’s comment during prop-118 could be
misunderstood as implying publicly Larus Cloud Service was gaming the CONFER
system during our colleague's presentation, when I confronted them with that
after the session closed, I was asked directly in private if we did it.
According to my reading of the Email of Craig, such behaviour is acceptable for
APINIC staff. And the company or individual they are defaming have no rights to
be angry, because the reputation of the individual or the company does not
matter, the volume of the voice is more important than serious accusation or
doubt made by APINIC staff.
We value our reputation dearly, we value the community dearly, and bottom up
process, community based policy development process are the core parts to the
very existence of the RIR system, CONFER being a larger step forward towards
more inclusive community, that would allow people who don't speak English well
to express their opinion as well as others, are an important step both for the
community as well as for APINIC.
That is the reason, assuring anyone abuse the very core system of the
community, is accusing someone manipulate the consensus process, it is the most
serious crime you can accuse someone for in this community.
And because of the seriousness, naturally we feel emotionally angry, and while
we trying to explain, however we thereafter being confronted by APNIC staff
with direct doubt and accusation of being liar, I am human, raise the volume of
my voice while I made the complaint to the staff's boss, was the very least I
can do.
We hope for an open transparent community, fairly treating everyone, not
because community give someone power, that someone can bully community member
at personal will.
I have told my story to Paul Wilson and Gaurab Raj, and already admitted in my
first email I was emotional, however, what we do not accept is that APNIC is
implying a member's serious wrong doing without evidence, that is not
considered as the source of these emotions being released and just brushed away.
As we all little man, we are nobody, but we elect people to power positions for
our own good, not for them to use that power against us.
>
>
> On 2 March 2017 at 11:04, Craig Ng <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Colleagues
Yesterday during the Policy SIG session, it became quite apparent to everyone
in the room that the CONFER system was indicating community sentiments that
were significantly at odds with the sentiments and discussions taking place
within the room.
This discrepancy appeared with the first policy proposal during the session,
and continued throughout the Policy SIG discussions.
During the presentation of Policy prop--118, additional information came to
APNIC Secretariat’s attention, giving it sufficient probative value to support
APNIC Secretariat’s assertion that the CONFER system was being misused; and
that it was no longer a reliable indicator of the community’s sentiment on
policy proposals.
No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse of the
CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118. Your misplaced
belief to the contrary is regrettable.
Our preliminary investigation has revealed that of the total 48 people
participating on CONFER during the sessions yesterday, twenty-one participants
used generic email addresses to participate, and a number of these addresses
appear suspicious. A full list of those suspicious participants (and the number
of times each participated on CONFER during the sessions yesterday) appear
below.
Our investigations are continuing.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding your misplaced belief that you or
your organisation was implicated in the misuse of CONFER, it is never
acceptable for aggressive, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards APNIC
staff (or anyone else, for that matter) during an APNIC event.
There are many avenues available to you to make complaints: you can write to
the APNIC Director-General, or the APNIC Executive Council. Indeed, you are
free to raise any concerns with any APNIC staff, but you need to do so in a
calm and respectful manner.
As I explained to you after the Policy SIG session, APNIC conferences are
workplaces for APNIC staff and many delegates, all of whom are entitled to a
safe workplace free from bullying, harassment or abuse. When you raise your
voice at APNIC staff, and use aggressive gestures within close proximity
towards APNIC staff, I believe that APNIC staff are fully entitled to let you
know that you are invading their personal space, and to ask you to step away.
APNIC supports and expects a safe and inclusive environment during its
meetings, where respectful and courteous discussions can take place. Please see
APNIC’s Community Code of Conduct available here:
https://www.apnic.net/events/apnic-community-code-of-conduct/.
APNIC will reveal further information about the misuse of the CONFER system
when they become available.
________________________________________
Craig Ng
General Counsel, APNIC
e: [email protected]
p: +61 7 3858 3152
m: +61 416 052 022
www.apnic.net
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 1 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 2 [email protected]
* 3 [email protected]
* 3 [email protected]
* 3 [email protected]
On 1/3/17, 5:50 pm, "[email protected] on behalf of Lu Heng"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Dear Community,
I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and
peaceful discussion.
My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion
went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER
system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.
But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy
ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made
the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the
system.
This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David
is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool
management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part
of a rigged policy making process.
>
> This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.
>
> I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got
> further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated
> me, now the accusation was direct.
While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3
or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not
believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and
confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future
confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim.
he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.
As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have
to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in
like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without
any proof!
If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one
in doubt.
If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should
simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.
In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was
ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit
evidence.
Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community
dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest,
but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed
it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them
think it is a good path to move forward with.
While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear
our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in
implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.
--
--
Kind regards.
Lu
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
