I understand your feeling, Richard, but still I believe it is an
efficient way to have the proposal from Secretariat who is
professionalized to the concerned business to be discussed among the
community.
In case of the address policy, we had Secretariat proposals in the
beginning, more than a decade ago, but we have been refraining from it
for a long time, and fully rely on the proposal from the community. I
think it matches to your idea of bottom-up.
Cheers,
Akinori
(2014/10/17 0:48), Richard Hill wrote:
I guess we have different understandings of "bottom up processes". To
me, it means that inputs come from the bottom, meaning the membership,
etc.
In this case, the input has come from the leadership. There is not
necessarily anything wrong with that, and in fact it may even be the
best way to proceed, but I does not match my idea of "bottom up".
Best,
Richard
-----Original Message-----
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]*On Behalf Of *Masato Yamanishi
*Sent:* jeudi, 16. octobre 2014 04:27
*To:* Guru Acharya
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
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]
<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?
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]
<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]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
_______________________________________________
IANAxfer mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer
