Dear Matthew, I have broght three broad
issues of discussion vide my next mail. Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: Matthew
Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] Hi Naresh, You don't seem to have
responded to the questions in my email. What exactly are you
asserting is the problem? You seem to be asserting that
there is an issue with the EC but you don't seem to be actually saying what you
think the issue is. MMC On 09/03/2010, at 6:30 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Matthew, The proposed reforms stand for all 56
countries and my last mail-point 2 i.e Voting Pattern needs a review; Please
think from the Internet perspective-it fills up the divide. Let’s attempt
to change and give all inclusive approach. Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On
Behalf Of Matthew
Moyle-Croft On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM,
Aadit Shrestha wrote:
Dear
all, How
about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who
have never had a member elected and cannot do so in
the foreseeable future with the same regulations. There's ~56 countries which
are in the APNIC RIR "zone". I count 9 (Japan, Australia,
Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) that have had
members from their countries elected to the board.
One thing missing from the
table of WHO got elected is who has run for election. Of the nations you
mention above have any of them attempted to gain a position on the EC and been
unable? If they were elected to the EC through a change of policy what
would you assert the difference would be as far as APNIC is run and resources
allocated? Especially as my understanding that the policies behind
resource allocation etc are set by members voting by show of hands at the meetings
not by the EC in private. There seems to be a number of
people pushing the idea that somehow some nations are favoured over others at
APNIC and that somehow the nations with smaller voting rights are "missing
out". Is this really the case? Is it a language issue or a
cultural issue? Is the issue that some people assume it's harder for
them than others or that it's harder because they don't do it that often?
The company I work for does quite a bit of work to do our allocations
especially now we have to justify some historic space. Is the actual issue education
and maybe some help/mentoring from others? eg. maybe some exchange
of ideas between members in different parts of the region might actually help
those who don't interact with APNIC as often for allocation get some help from
those who do or have less cultural/language issues? Regards, Matthew -- Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and
DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000
Australia -- Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and
DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000
Australia
|