Acharya, But, this is the way which APNIC community chose. I think each community’s culture and their decision making process should be respected more since we are discussing this topic by bottom up process.
Regards, Masato Yamanishi On 2014/10/15 15:19, "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? > > 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 >>> <http://conference.apnic.net/data/38/20140917-1100-IANA-Stewardship-Transiti >>> on.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
