I hope you agree that the APNIC Staff Proposal was not discussed at all on this mailing list (except the post by Mr Wilson informing us about the existence of the proposal). Given that the mailing list was created for the sole purpose of discussing the proposal, the absence of any discussion on the mailing list suggests that something went wrong. Or does no discussion (even a +1) mean consensus on the mailing list as well?
Obviously not everyone can physically attend the APNIC conference. Even if you may argue consensus was reached at the conference, I doubt you can suggest consensus was reached on the mailing list. I am not pointing fingers. I was just hopeful of seeing a more vibrant discussion. Maybe you could start another thread on this mailing list explaining the proposal in detail and inviting comments from the list members. Please take this as a constructive suggestion. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Masato Yamanishi < [email protected]> wrote: > Guru, > Firstly, I cannot copy and paste the transcript from some reason, let me > refer videos of each session instead of copying the transcript. > > See inline my comment. > > Oct 15, 2014 9:44 AM、Guru Acharya <[email protected]> のメッセージ: > > Hi, > > This list (IANAxfer) created by APNIC to discuss the number community's > response to the ICG RFP has been absolutely silent for almost a month. I am > curious to know the current status of the process in the numbers community; > and if an alternate medium/list is now being used to discuss the transition. > > I'm also curious to know whether the APNIC staff proposal presented during > APNIC-38 has been accepted as the final proposal? > > > As I mentinoed in AMM, this draft proposal was accepted by APNIC community > as starting point of further discussion, not the final proposal. Then we > will continue the discussion on this list until Nov. > (See around 29:00 in AMM session 3 video > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8KHOi7C-x8) > > I gather from the transcripts that the APNIC staff proposal was met with > silence during the conference - and that this silence was taken to be as > full consensus. > > > We discussed it for 38.5mins (you can see it from 35:30 to 1:14:00 in the > video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg2Kp6SRhQQ ), so I cannot > understand why you call it "met with silence". > Rather, we, APNIC community, had active and health discussion, and as a > moderator, I am confident we could reach to enough level of consensus in > APNIC community. > Also, when I asked community views about second principle in draft > proposal, Dean said very useful comment, so you cannot call it silence in > that meaning too. (See at 1:15:00 in same video) > Certainly, I didn't ask the consensus by show of hands nor voting, but > this proposal is NOT a policy proposal for our number resources, so we have > multiple ways to ask community's view, and I am also sure that the way I > asked the consensus is fully accepted in APNIC community. > > Regards, > Masato Yamanishi > > > conference.apnic.net/data/38/20140917-1100-IANA-Stewardship-Transition.txt > > Further, how will the proposal be coordinated amongst the 5 RIRs at the > NRO level? > > Thanks, > Acharya > > _______________________________________________ > IANAxfer mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer > >
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
