[rpd] APNIC presentation prop-118

[David Hilario]

Dear Alan,

Thank you very much for the quick reaction and clear reply.



Dear Jackson,

Thank you for the reply.

I will try to clarify some aspects and I can understand where those
comments came from.

1.
There was an issue with the software, they (APNIC) are investigating, it
could all be one giant misunderstanding, I will not comment any further on
this.

2.
Your comments about my ethics and person are sad and hurtful.

I can enlighten you a bit more on the background of your accusations
though, the only incident over at APNIC is between Heng Lu and APNIC, as he
jumped in to defend my name and the company's name, as the timing of the
announcement that CONFER was to be disregarded could had lead people to
believe the things you just said, which is very understandable and
regrettable.

I personally went to speak to APNIC's policy person and the co-chair after
the session to understand more of what had happened, I can assure you there
is no shred of suspicion against me or Heng Lu.
Your accusations and remarks are both hurtful and highly inappropriate.

To quote quote for you the email of APNIC's general counsel Graig Ng as a
response to Heng Lu being displeased with how the situation could be
interpreted:

"No correlation was asserted or implied that the people behind the misuse
of the CONFER system were connected with the people proposing prop-118.
Your misplaced belief to the contrary is regrettable."

So yes, we also regrettably felt that it could come our way, and as I see
and hear from you, you were misled to believe this too, it is a real shame
and you are probably not the only one out there.

Cleaning up empty accusation is not easy.


If you follow the APNIC mailing list, you will see that there is actually a
strong support for the policy, there is only a few against the policy and
to reach a full consensus a few tweaks to the policy will probably bring
that to fulfillment,
In the room itself, there was only two opposition, one of which is also an
active contributor on the mailinglist and whose opinion was already known.
We as an organisation would had no gain from trying to "cheat".

The policy proposal is not dropped nor requested to be dropped, just to be
re-introduced at the next APNIC meeting.

Below are some direct quotes from APINIC policy mailling list in the
support :

"one unmentioned advantage to this proposal is the reduced incentive to
engage in off-the-books transfers which reduce Whois accuracy."

"you have my support for this policy proposal.
I think that simplifying the transfer process and procedures will improve
the data quality of the registry and of the APNIC Database."

You may find the entire discussion here as well:

http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2017/02/subject.html

I sincerely hope this helps to clear up any misunderstanding or suspicions
from your side.

David Hilario

*IP Manager*

*Larus Cloud Service Limited*

p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918>  m: +359 89 764 1784
<+359%2089%20764%201784>
f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068>
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net/uk <http://laruscloudservice.net/uk>
e: d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net <d.hilario at outsideheaven.com>


On Mar 3, 2017 6:47 PM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:



On Friday, March 3, 2017, David Hilario <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
wrote:
>
>
> As the author of policy prop-118 to APNIC, I would like to inform the
AFRINIC community of a topic that could also become relevant in this region
too:
>
> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-118/
>
> The concept and the text are not originally mine, the no need policy
comes from the discussion of the first transfer policy at APNIC, the
concept was abandoned when ARIN introduced its policy of inter-RIR
transfer, since ARIN can only transfer to a registry with a "need base
policy".


This is simply absurd.

> Prop-118 received a lot of support both in the room and in the mailing
list, with only one strong objection, but due to a problem with APNIC's
remote participation software,



We follow APNIC discussion. Do not mislead the community. There was no
problem with their software. You tried to cheat by putting fake
participants to vote for your policy and you were caught.


Your questionable ethic puts me at a position to oppose any policy you
introduce in our region.

J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170304/6744c446/attachment.html>