>But I agree that there was no support/objection/discussion >on this on the ML until the session.
That is the reason why I asked to add more introductory slides to the presentation. Regards, Masato On 2014/10/15 17:27, "MAEMURA Akinori" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
