[governance] PP: India wants to abolish BGP and introduce national routing and IP management

[Guru Acharya]

In-line

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:50 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

> >> There is a misunderstanding the role of APNIC's EC here. They do not
> make policy or represent anyone other than themselves. They ensure policy
> developed via the bottom-up community processes has followed the APNIC
> policy development process.
> >
> > Thats an incorrect representation of the work done by the APNIC EC.
> Please read the list of functions performed by the APNIC EC here
>
> I think I might know a bit about the role of APNIC's EC (having created it
> long ago). You asked in relation to the APNIC EC:
>
>
Then you must have drafted function (e) of the APNIC EC. Please do explain
the scope of "(e) To consider broad Internet policy issues in order to
ensure that APNIC's policies and strategies fully respond to the constantly
changing Internet environment;"

In contrast, the scope of Policy SIG is limited to "policy issues related
to management and use of IP resources".

Don't you think IANA Transition is one of these "broad internet policy
issues" that is outside the scope of the Policy SIG and within the scope of
the APNIC EC due to the scope of function (e)?

I can think of numerous other examples (say position at NETmundial on human
right principles) that fall in the realm of "broad internet policy issues"
- i.e. within the scope of the EC and outside the scope of the SIG.

Don't you see a loophole there?


> > Further, there are many issues like the IANA transition that fall
> outside the scope of the Policy SIG. For example, the APNIC EC was seen to
> have pushed its proposal (prepared by the EC and secretariat) for the IANA
> transition during APNIC38 in a top-down fashion. Are you really suggesting
> the APNIC EC has no role to play here as well?
>
> Not having been at APNIC38 nor closely followed APNIC's efforts related to
> the transition, I can't comment on specifics.  However, if the APNIC EC has
> overstepped its role, I don't believe the correct solution would be to try
> to turn it into a representative body (which simply won't work), rather it
> would be for the membership to push back on the APNIC EC so that it
> operates within its tightly constrained role.
>
>
I don't see the membership pushing the EC back to its constrained role.
Maybe something failed somewhere in your design.


> Regards,
> -drc
> (ICANN CTO (and also a bit involved in the creation of APNIC and former
> APNIC DG), but speaking only for myself. Really.)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20141029/7e13faba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t