I forgot to add one more broader observation. ·
Why is that the vote counts of lost candidates are not been announced.? Regards Desi Valli From: Desi Valli
Hi David, I can’t call this as an evidence but could be considered as per the law of interpretation. We all went through what happened on the last day, during vote count. As a first timer in APNIC conferences, following are some of the observations that make
me to interpret that the intentions of ECs are not neutral, always. Broadly: 1.
Elections are conducted by ECs instead of an Election commission or someone who is not part of current responsibilities. 2.
Voting is again managed by the secretariat not by a any neutral body. 3.
The scrutinizers are not selected before the start of election, but only at the time of counting.
4.
There is NO maximum number of years defined to be an EC, it looked as if the Asian Internet community has a huge shortage of eminent and qualified
people. 5.
THE organisation that is responsible to make Internet work, keeps a LOOPHOLE open in the voting process in the name of proxy voting, that helps the
contestants to bargain between, and manipulate the outcome.
·
(I’m from India which is the largest democratic in the world, with more than 750 million eligible voters, conducts the entire election process through
electronic voting systems, as the people believe that the ballet system has loopholes for contestants to manipulate the outcome – India is still a developing country) On the specific incident:
6.
One of the EC member
SUSPENDS the counting process, without HEARING both the sides, or CONSULTING other EC members. 7.
Does the constitution allows “ONLY ONE” EC to suspend the counting process, without even discussing the case with the other EC members? (I couldn’t
find any such document online, if so please send me the link) 8.
The EC who is also a complainant is been appointed as the chair of the “enquiry commission” by another current EC who was the chair at that juncture,
in the excuse of he being the contestant. Isn’t that obvious that there SHOULD be only neutral person as chair in such an event. 9.
Even after I objecting the decision of the complainant being the chair of the commission, there were no moral responsibility visible, the chair didn’t
step-down or ask for a consensus among the members to continue as the chair. The explanation of the incident was given to other EC members, only after the suspension of counting processes was executed. Good that James was matured enough
to demand for an explanation before going for a consensus on dismissing the counting processes. Otherwise it would have been a suo-motto decision of ONE of the ECs, not a democratic decision. How could an EC who is believed and trusted to be qualified and
experienced to run an organisation like APNIC, take such a hasty decision? This is good enough to be interpreted/considered as an EVIDENCE that the undemocratic decision of suspending the counting process without consulting the other EC members, is definitely
not in the interests of APNIC. PS: if I had been an EC, I would have demanded resignation from such ECs who displays a total immaturity and incompetency in handling such serious issues and
taking hasty decisions. The unilateral & dictatorial decision of suspending the counting processes is unconstitutional and undemocratic.
Regards Desi Valli From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net]
On Behalf Of David Conrad Naresh, I always thought EC members represented themselves and not their organizations, their countries of origin, their language group, their religion, etc. Do you have some evidence this isn't the case? Regards, -drc On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Message sent using India’s leading Hosted Microsoft Exchange service. For details visit http://net4.in/hostedExchange Please consider the environment before printing.
|