Hi Craig,
Thank you for the reply. > 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. I hope that we can get to the bottom of this and that the Chair can decide how to proceed in the future and that we don't need the general counsel in policy matters as it is not really the proper way. I now also really do hope that these listed account were indeed just fake accounts just to abuse CONFER, as I am not sure about the listing their accounts details in an archived public mailing-list. QQ is very common, I have a QQ ID it is also just a bunch of numbers, and from what I know it is used to register yourself with a lot of services in China. I had to have one once I started working for a Chinese company. They are also traceable by anyone who has QQ, they seem to be real QQ accounts some over a decade old from what I found. If they are the real people behind the accounts, you just publicly declared them fake and abusive for just showing interest in the policy process and making use of the remote system in place. And I can very well see non English speaker making use of such a simple system to show their opinion. If they are real accounts and being abused by someone who is gaming the system, again, those are potentially real accounts that are traceable for anyone and they have just been declared to be scammers while they have nothing to do with this whole incident and probably have never even heard of APNIC. So unless the accounts are 100% fake accounts, I don't believe they should had been published like that on the list without any obfuscation. David Hilario *IP Manager* *Larus Cloud Service Limited* p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918> m: +359 89 764 1784 <+359%2089%20764%201784> f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR w: laruscloudservice.net/uk e: [email protected] <[email protected]> On 2 March 2017 at 06:04, 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 <+61%207%203858%203152> > > m: +61 416 052 022 <+61%20416%20052%20022> > > www.apnic.net > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > * 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
