Dear Acharya, Thanks for your inputs and suggestions. Please see my comments below:
On 16 October 2014 09:20, Guru Acharya <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > APNIC accountability was noted and raised by Mr. Maemura Akinori, Chair of APNIC EC http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-announce/archive/2014/07/msg00002.html > > 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). > > Please refer to APNIC member survey 2014 report (page 31). http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/77903/APNIC-Survey-2014_Final-Report-17-Sept.pdf > Further, this election process of the APNIC EC does not represent the > Multi-Stakeholder ethos mandated by NTIA for the oversight mechanism. > RIRs are clearly identified as address community, which acted as one of supporting organizations under ICANN multi-stakeholder structure. ICANN/IANA operating model was mandated by NTIA. http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm APNIC itself is a membership-based, not-for-profit organization. Its operation is governed by APNIC by-laws. http://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/documents/corporate/by-laws > 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/ > I appreciate your inputs and feedback. I believe there are ways to improve NRO and APNIC accountability, which won't be possible without members' inputs and participation. Thanks and Best Regards Kenny Huang > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
