Acharya,
I'm afraid that it is now going out of scope on this lists.
Even though we don't have clear charter of this list, the introduction
page mentioned as follows.
> This new mailing list is for discussions on the proposals and desired outcomes from
the APNIC community of the process to transition IANA away from the US
Government.
And, I don't think APNIC voting rights is a part of IANA transition.
Also, if you want to discuss more about voting rights in APNIC, please
note that only AMM and EC can make a decision for that
since APNIC is member based organization and only members are eligible
for voting.
FYI, consensus in APNIC Policy Development Process is not "voting".
It is fully open for anybody and has different mechanism to decide
reaching consensus. (in other words, "No counting)
Akinori and Paul> I think this kind of topics should be discussed on
apnic-talk, am I right?
Regards,
Masato Yamanishi
On 2014/10/15 18:20, "Guru Acharya" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Acharya,
At Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:49:14 +0530
In message
<CAEEwkf7UvV=est5ukkzgvbkg8ffsx6kuhx7eyzkkgzoidcs...@mail.gmail.com
<mailto:[email protected]>>
"Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update"
"Guru Acharya <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> ??????:
| >
| > 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-Transition.txt>
| >
| > Further, how will the proposal be coordinated amongst the
5 RIRs at the
| > NRO level?
| >
| > Thanks,
| > Acharya
| >
| > _______________________________________________
| > IANAxfer mailing list
| > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
| >
| >
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| IANAxfer mailing list
| [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
|
|
|
_______________________________________________ IANAxfer mailing
list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________
IANAxfer mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
