Yes, I do have a substantive suggestion in addition to the procedural suggestions.
I believe if NTIA oversight is to be replaced by a SLA/AOC between NRO and ICANN, then there is a need to first enhance the accountability of NRO (and APNIC thereof). The accountability of the NRO will need to be enhanced because it will have the additional responsibility of oversight. This additional responsibility increases the requisite accountability of the NRO. My primary problem with NRO and APNIC accountability is with their EC election process. In the APNIC EC elections, the votes allotted to members are in proportion of the IP addresses held by them. For example, if the IP holding is up to /22, the member has 2 votes; and if the IP holding is between /13 and /10, then the member has 32 votes. This system creates a bias in favour of incumbent members who have grandfathered large IP holdings and penalises those members who are using IP addresses efficiently (for example by using Network Address Translation) and also penalises the community that is yet to connect to the Internet or has connected to the Internet late. This bias is reflected in the statistics that Eastern Asia holds 2,712,098 of the IPv4/24 addresses while South Asia holds only 170,365 of the IPv4/24 addresses. Effectively, there is lack of APNIC EC accountability to South Asian countries. Notably, the APNIC EC has remained almost unchanged for almost a decade (please don't point my attention towards the few minor changes in the APNIC EC over the years - most members have remained the same). Further, this election process of the APNIC EC does not represent the Multi-Stakeholder ethos mandated by NTIA for the oversight mechanism. I accordingly feel that NRO and APNIC accountability should first be enhanced before NTIA Oversight can be replaced by a SLA/AOC between NRO and ICANN. In the absence of such enhanced accountability, I would prefer the creation of a new MS Oversight Entity as suggested on http://www.internetgovernance.org/2014/08/04/students-school-faculty-on-iana-transition-the-meissen-proposal/ On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:57 AM, MAEMURA Akinori <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Acharya, > > > At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:49:14 +0530 > In message <CAEEwkf7UvV= > [email protected]> > "Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update" > "Guru Acharya <[email protected]>" wrote: > > | > | > | 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? > | > Reality is that : > > Paul Wilson informed of the Secretariat Proposal on September 8, > The session in Brisbane was held on September 17. > We had one message following the original. > > But I agree that there was no support/objection/discussion > on this on the ML until the session. > > > | 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. > | > For sure, for those who cannot attend in person, > APNIC provides remote participation means. > > > | 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. > | > That's a good suggestion, indeed. > > I am not sure what region or country you reside, I would > like to mention Asia Pacific region has the tendency that > people are quiet in discussion. I know this through my > 15 year experience in APNIC forum. > > I understand and agree that it should have been much better > if we successfully had had active on-the-list discussion > >from the peoople in region. It is a shame, indeed. > > > BTW, do you have any comment or input for the substance of > the proposal? If you have any, I'd love to know. > > > Best, > Akinori > > > | > | > | 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 > | > | > | >
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
