Richard,

On 2014/10/17 1:05, "Richard Hill" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dear Masato,
>  
> Thank you for this.
>  
> You say "I could not find any support for your comment currently."
>  
> You are being kind.  In fact, opposition to that comment was expressed by
> senior staff of ARIN and ICANN.  For sure they were speaking for themselves,
> as individuals, but nevethless their comments might have influenced others.

I’m afraid you underestimate APNIC community members.

>   It is not consistent with my view of bottom up that senior leadership
> quickly (in this case within 6 hours) criticizes a post made by an unknown
> outsider.  But I think that we have already agreed to disagree regarding what
> is a bottom up process.

It sounds you assume that RIR staffs are leaders of number communities (You
also mentioned in different thread that if the proposal was made by staffs
it is top-down),
but that assumption is not correct in many operational communities, at least
in APNIC community.
In APNIC, the leader is APNIC EC since they are elected from the community.
And, APNIC staff is not a leader of the community, rather they are asked to
serve for the APNIC community.
(like attorneys in the court. Oops, of course US attorneys are little bit
different….)
So, it is acceptable that APNIC staffs represent our community if their
comments are well aligned with the community’s views.
(If well aligned, they are expected to do so actually)

>  
> You say, regarding the purpose of this list, "Obviously, Reaching out beyond
> the APNIC community is NOT included."
>  
> That raises two questions:
>  
> 1. Since I am not a member of the APNIC community, should I unsubscribe from
> this list?

No, you don’t need. As I proposed the charter, anyone is welcome, but
expected to focus on the purpose of this list and respect cultural
differences.
As I said previously, outreach is not a purpose of this list. Of course, you
can catch up what is going on in APNIC on this list,
but it is “reaching to the APNIC community”, not “reaching out beyond the
APNIC community” in my dictionary.

>  
> 2. What mechanism is APNIC planning to use to engage the global
> multi-stakeholder community and to get their consensus for the APNIC
> transition plan?

Regional discussion -> CRISP -> ICG. Also outcomes in each steps should be
feedback to the APNIC community and will be discussed.
Also, I cannot understand what you meant by “get their consensus for the
APNIC transition plan”.
Currently, we are discussing our proposal as number resources organization
in AP region.
It will be compiled with other communities’ proposal in CRISP and ICG. Then
that compiled one will be final proposal and should be reached consensus
among all stakeholders.
We are not claiming that our proposal covers everything and names and
protocols communities should follow our proposal.

Regards,
Masato

> 
> Thanks again and best,
> Richard
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Masato Yamanishi  [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: vendredi, 17. octobre 2014  07:58
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected]; Guru  Acharya; [email protected]; Masato Yamanishi
>> Subject: Re:  [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status Update
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> Richard,
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> On 2014/10/16 8:41, "Richard Hill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>>  
>>>   
>>>  
>>> Thanks for this.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> You say below "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."
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> How, if at all, were the comments made in September on this  mailing list
>>> taken into  account?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> While discussion for more details is on-going and more comments are  welcome
>> as Akinori mentioned in different thread,
>>  
>> I could not find any support for your comment currently.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> When I used to participate in ITU-T SG13, Mr. Chae Sub Lee, the Chair,  often
>> used a joke which says,
>>  
>> “Standardization is making everybody equally unhappy”.
>>  
>> I love that joke and we can use it for consensus also.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> You say that the proposal has reached  consensus in the APNIC community.
>>> But please recall that the IANA  transition proposal should have the
>>> consensus of the global  multi-stakeholder community, which is not quite the
>>> same  thing.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> But, we are currently discussing outcomes from APNIC community in APNIC
>> community, so our development process should be respected.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> I thought that this mailing list would  be the method used to reach out
>>> beyond the APNIC community.  Is that  correct?
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> NO. The introductory text of this lists says 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.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Obviously, “Reaching out beyond the APNIC community" is NOT  included.
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Masato
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>>  
>>> Richard
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]  [mailto:[email protected]]On
>>>> Behalf Of Masato Yamanishi
>>>> Sent: mercredi, 15. octobre 2014  23:45
>>>> To: Guru Acharya
>>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
>>>> Subject:  Re: [IANAxfer@apnic] APNIC IANA Process - Status  Update
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 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
>>>>> <http://conference.apnic.net/data/38/20140917-1100-IANA-Stewardship-Transi
>>>>> tion.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

Reply via email to