[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Application for India NIR - Call for C

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Application for India NIR - Call for Comments
From: "Brajesh jain"
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:51:21 +0530
Dear APNIC Internet Community friends,

This response is on behalf of ISOC, Delhi Chapter. I happen to be in Chair
as of now.

ISOC Delhi chapter has been very happy to learn that NIR is about to be
functional in India.

We understand that ICANN guidelines are followed by APNIC and would need to
be followed by India NIR. We have also noted that there are existing NIRs in
other countries  already working successfully. 

ISOC Delhi chapter has embarked on educating users of Internet, benefits and
responsibility of user as well. We also work with other ISOC chapters in
India for extending such education in other parts of India. Internet
subscribes need inputs towards understanding connectivity and flow of
information in Internet cloud. They have concerns over continuity of service
as well as privacy of information. They also have concerns about shortage of
IP addresses. 

ISOC Delhi chapter welcomes and fully supports creation of NIR in India. The
Delhi Chapter would fully support NIR in its operation and formation of
guidelines and commits to monitor NIR activities and adherence to
ICANN/APNIC norms and guidelines.

Thanks for your time.

With regards and best wishes for success of NIR in India.

Brajesh C Jain
Chair, ISOC Delhi Chapter   

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: 24 November 2009 12:25
To: [email protected]
Subject: apnic-talk Digest, Vol 67, Issue 46

Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
        [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  [Apnic-announce] Application for India NIR - Call    for
      Comments (Harish Pokharel)


Message: 1
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:38:17 +0545
From: Harish Pokharel <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Application for India NIR -
        Call    for Comments
To: Vebtel - Kusumba S <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
        <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I hope that there are requirements criteria that should be met. If the
requirement criteria are met then why should there be out of topic
discussions in the matter.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Vebtel - Kusumba S
<[email protected]>wrote:

>  Ofcourse, as long as:
> All one may understand here is that the members of NIXI are ISPs and
> registrars. Whereas, members for NIR are Corporates, Independent Companies
> (not necessarily are peering to any ISP that is member of NIXI), Defence
> establishments,  Financial Institutions, IT companies, Manufacturing
> companies, Educational institutions etc who have nothing to do with NIXI.
> So, the "need" neither addressed them nor the "cause" explains the same
> since the only document that is available talks about NIXI / ISPAI / DoT /
> TRAI.... Also, if NIXI has to form the NIR, I don't see a situation where
> NIXI will alter its board for the cause of NIR to include other members of
> NIR!
> Hence, neutrality cannot be achieved since the dominance is of NIXI
> members, unless a separate Section 25 is established as "by members", "for
> member" and "to members".
> ---
> You may have read over this ten times... but thats the point! I am sure
> know the current composition of members of APNIC from India.
> *Kusumba S*
> kramvir singh wrote:
> When I referred to 'you' not there, it also meant 'we' are not there. But
> your neutrality point is well meaning.
>  My concern was only one - not having NIR, which also you have clarified.
> We all want NIR in India.
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:44 PM, kramvir singh
<[email protected]>wrote:
>> If Neutrality is the only concern then I think NIXI should clarify this.
>>  However, if you are not there does not mean Neutrality is not there.
>>  Greetings,
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Vebtel - Kusumba S
<[email protected]>wrote:
>>> Check my comments below:
>>> kramvir singh wrote:
>>> Thank You for acknowledging that NIR in India shall be formed.
>>>  Kusumba S >>> Please correct... there is no acknowledgment and at the
>>> same time there is no objection! No objection cannot be attributed to
>>> acknowledgment. As I clarified in my last mail, unless the documents and
>>> neutrality is established, it is difficult to get convinced. When I say
>>> neutrality, it is "by members", "for member" and "to members" from top
>>> the organization to the ground. Without which, it is never neutral but a
>>> compromise for no reason.
>>> The detailed response of Desi and others are not helping you as your
>>> objective is outsourcing of APNIC. This outsourcing, I agree is not
>>> talked by community and that?s why you are finding the discussion void.
>>>  Kusumba S >>> NIR did not raise outsourcing issue. As again, you may
>>> have missed, I have mentioned this in detail about two years back!
>>> Please help the community with your inputs on what was your plan and
>>> objectives for  NIR, as your statements suggest that you only  know and
>>> others do not know.Please shower your blessings  on the lesser mortals
>>> like us too!
>>>  Kusumba S >>> Ofcourse, would have been the first to do it when I find
>>> neutrality. As a matter of fact, may be you are not aware of history
>>> the first NIR thought-process-documentation was made. The basic
>>> itself is not complying the above three requirements "by members", "for
>>> member" and "to members", so it does not qualify my view.
>>> Greetings,
>>> *Kusumba S*
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Vebtel - Kusumba S
<[email protected]>wrote:
>>>> While I appreciate your reasoning, the concerns will not be addressed
>>>> till such time the documents are published and made public.
>>>> No one, including me said that NIR in India should not be formed!
>>>> However, the reasons attributed to it and the comments on the mails
>>>> represented that there is no clarity on the formation of NIR since
there is
>>>> no evidence of alignment with International community and best
>>>> Some additional comments even raised doubts if NIR is being looked as a
>>>> "problem-solving" solution or "community participation" system for
>>>> Added to that are the "emotions" of angular momentums and tendencies of
>>>> something going off the tangent that allows one to think if there is a
>>>> defined system for establishing, running, managing and consistently
>>>> protection of global resources and procedures through or at NIR in
India, if
>>>> formed.
>>>> To rule out all this, all you could do is, establish those simple
>>>> procedural documents and make things clear. If you intend not to do,
>>>> whatever the reason you wish to attribute to such as "criteria",
>>>> "compliance", etc etc etc... , this discussion is void!
>>>> Ofcourse, irrespective of anything here, APNIC can always look at
>>>> outsourcing or relocating some of the operations to cost effective
>>>> countries, something that I mentioned two years back too!
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> *Kusumba S
>>>> *
>>>> kramvir singh wrote:
>>>> All your  earlier mails have been responded by Desi/ Mutthuswamy /
>>>> Brajesh and others in details. Looks to me that you have missed out.
>>>> please feel free to point out if any concern has not been responded.
>>>> NIR is not the solution of all woes but  NIR is an opportunity for
>>>> addressing few of them!
>>>> Whenever anyone would do things on their own, the learning?s,
>>>> importance, implementation are entirely different. Mutthuswamy has also
>>>> tried to explain the same in his mail. Similarly Desi?s response on
>>>> from Japan.
>>>> You need to have your objectives clear. Is it your concern on APNIC
>>>> revenue or one time your interest for NIR without Govt. endorsement
>>>> was dropped by APNIC community.
>>>> If it is APNIC's revenue, then it is not only because of India NIR , it
>>>> is also due to the other 6 NIRs. In Andy?s words ?This is no reason to
>>>> reject NIR for India  ?. If it is due to drop of your proposal due to
>>>> drop of endorsement, this itself is enough for us to understand that
NIR is
>>>> required.
>>>> Dear brother, hope your all concerns are addressed. If not, be positive
>>>> to get it addressed when NIR comes to India!
>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:51 PM, kramvir singh
<[email protected]>wrote:
>>>>> Good,  you have stopped referring yourself as - "we/community". This
>>>>> ?I? shall be addressed. The right to publishing the document is with
>>>>> and they have done it.Please connect to their initial communication
and you
>>>>> will have all the details. I am sure your so- claimed point already
>>>>> would get further clarity.
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Vebtel - Kusumba S <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I think the way I would look at this in the respect of others here,
>>>>>> ignore this! Thats not the point to debate with you! The point is
>>>>>> made clear in my earlier mail and if one has clarity on those things,
>>>>>> publish the same and thats it! Nothing to talk!
>>>>>> *Kusumba S*
>>>>>> kramvir singh wrote:
>>>>>> Hey, I find the entire response deviating .
>>>>>>  In your mail I have noticed that you have referred yourself as ?we?
>>>>>> and ?community? whereas in my understanding I am not able to place
you in
>>>>>> any community in India?.so please do not impose your individual views
>>>>>> community views!
>>>>>>  NIXI has applied for NIR so the discussion should be nation or at
>>>>>> most regional only.
>>>>>>  I have nowhere referred anything about language , IP, financial
>>>>>> constraints etc?. How my understanding the same would help me in
>>>>>> understanding which community you come from?
>>>>>>  I appreciate your view point on outsourcing from APNIC, but how it
>>>>>> gets relevant on this APNIC talk is a surprise for me! In community
>>>>>> of preaching and patronizing , please contribute in a positive
>>>>>>  In the morning I have seen mails of Andy, Gaurav, Naresh and Philip
>>>>>> which were very positive and talking about brasstrack.
>>>>>>  Community representatives like Desi ,Mutthuswamy and  Brajesh  are
>>>>>> responding well. And hope they also check on your community
>>>>>>  In brief,which community you belong & referring is still not clear.
>>>>>>  Thanks for the only kind word in your mail ? Brother!
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Vebtel - Kusumba S <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>> This is the exact problem you seem to be having! You only know two
>>>>>>> countries in entire Asia Pacific region!
>>>>>>> On Internet resources that are global resources, one cannot
>>>>>>> demonstrate "regional" problems and claim a stake in there, no
matter even
>>>>>>> if you were to be from either of the countries you mentioned below!
>>>>>>> Further, as long as you learn to talk "community" language, you will
>>>>>>> not talk problems like "language", "no ip addresses", "financial
>>>>>>> constraints", "upstream non-operation", etc.... community
facilitates you to
>>>>>>> handle them already and you will known if you are part of that
community for
>>>>>>> the "cause" and not for "need".
>>>>>>> So, hope that clarifies, which part of community I belong to
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> Kusumba S
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> kramvir singh wrote:
>>>>>>> Which country are you from , India or Pakistan?
>>>>>>>  If India,  please clarify which Internet community  you represent
>>>>>>> as, you have mentioned in your mail you have been saying
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:29 PM, kramvir singh <
>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>> From: Vebtel - Kusumba S <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>  Date: Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 8:19 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Application for India
>>>>>>>> - Call for Comments
>>>>>>>>  To: [email protected]
>>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues,
>>>>>>>> I think this thread is running no where since the "need" and
>>>>>>>> are way apart and are not justified. So, as I see, here is what I
think the
>>>>>>>> least expected here, ofcourse resulting in what I have explained in
>>>>>>>> "activity 2" here:
>>>>>>>> *Activity 1:*
>>>>>>>> 1) The applicant makes the application public here.
>>>>>>>> 2) The applicant demonstrates endorsement and adoption of open
>>>>>>>> policy frame work by doing the following:
>>>>>>>>        i) publish documentation for composition of the proposed
>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>>        ii) publish documentation for composition of the proposed
>>>>>>>> board, stake holding, election process of the board, election of
the CEO /
>>>>>>>> Chair / Secretary / Treasurer
>>>>>>>>        iii) publish documentation detailing voting policy and
>>>>>>>> rights for both members and non members
>>>>>>>>        iv) publish documentation for making policy proposals,
>>>>>>>> framework, policy endorsements and policy management
>>>>>>>>        v) publish documentation for decision management cycle,
>>>>>>>> functioning and member participation
>>>>>>>>        vi) publish process for financial management, financial
>>>>>>>> decision power, funding structure and budget
>>>>>>>>        vii) publish documentation detailing process management such
>>>>>>>> as "resource requests", "change requests", "whois updates", "object
>>>>>>>> management", etc
>>>>>>>>        viii) demonstrate the capability of managing the operations
>>>>>>>> of NIR by showcasing the proposed team structure, roles and
>>>>>>>> definitions
>>>>>>>>        ix) publish document detailing the roles of members, non -
>>>>>>>> members, interest groups and community participation
>>>>>>>>        finally,
>>>>>>>>        ix) an undertaking that the resource allocation will be free
>>>>>>>> and open as per the above frame work and the same shall not be
inter linked
>>>>>>>> or related to any other compliances and process of either licensing
>>>>>>>> regulations. The same need to be adopted into the "Articles of
>>>>>>>> and "Memorandum of Association" of the proposed company, which I
guess will
>>>>>>>> be an independent section 25 (not for profit) company without stake
>>>>>>>> by any other existing companies.
>>>>>>>> *Activity 2:*
>>>>>>>> 1) If NIR in India is formed, the revenues of APNIC will be
>>>>>>>> significantly. I am not sure if there is a way out there, but here
is what I
>>>>>>>> propose:
>>>>>>>>     i) APNIC should start considering outsourcing some of their
>>>>>>>> operations to least operational-cost countries like India, that
helps them
>>>>>>>> to reduce the operational costs including real estate costs, staff
>>>>>>>> communication costs, etc.
>>>>>>>>     ii) APNIC may publish financial projections for next three
>>>>>>>> with two options:
>>>>>>>>              a) continue operations as-is and the impact with
>>>>>>>> NIR (considering about 70% of the Indian members will move to
Indian NIR in
>>>>>>>> next one year)
>>>>>>>>              b) outsource or relocate some of the operations to
>>>>>>>> low-operational cost countries and analyse the impact on the
>>>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>>  I am confident that the answers for all the above will make the
>>>>>>>> community be assured that things are the way as needed.
>>>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>>> *Kusumba S
>>>>>>>> www.linkedin.com/in/kusumba
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> apnic-talk mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 67, Issue 46

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [apnic-talk] [Apnic-announce] Application for India NIR - Call for Comments, Brajesh jain <=