Actually there were far more than only one message following Paul Wilson's message, see:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2014/09/ My comments on the substance of the proposal are at: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/ianaxfer/archive/2014/09/msg00003.h tml Best, Richard > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori > Sent: jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 02:27 > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update > > > Dear Acharya, > > > At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:49:14 +0530 > In message > <CAEEwkf7UvV=est5ukkzgvbkg8ffsx6kuhx7eyzkkgzoidcs...@mail.gmail.com> > "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
