Dear Maemura San, So why didn’t we leave the "timeline
issue for the proxy registeration" also on independent friends from other
RIR? I propose to elaborate the issue further but we can't have norms/conflict
of interest at our coneveniences and that’s why I have proposed the Electoral
College as first area of concern. Whats wrong with this proposal; The electoral
college can have friends from other RIR but they shall not be accountable to the
ECs. Other two propsoed areas of discussion have
the similar reasoning and origin but I am optimist and want to discuss the reforms
only. Regards and best wishes, Naresh Ajwani -----Original Message----- Dear Brajesh C Jain, In message
<95E34AF7583A48F58CC7961BCB083259 at in dot spectranet dot com>
"RE: [apnic-talk] Elections"
"Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in>" wrote: | Dear Maemura San, |
| A senior EC person gave a logic , while you were
in the chair, that a | person should not be present in counting as
ballot identity would be known. | I've checked the scribe but still have no
idea who and what part you mentioned. Whom do you mean by "A senior EC
person"? | Ballot papers have no name, so how come the
identity would be known. |
| Hope you would give your response. |
No answer to the question since I clearly had
a conflict of interest as a candidate on anything regarding
the election on Friday. It is not the question when the motion
was made. That why I asked Kuo Wei Wu for being
tentative chair since he is the only officeholder not expiring the
term. For me personally, I have no idea why we
cannot leave the vote-counting far independent friends like
colleagues from other RIRs. Anyway, such a procedure should be
reinforced not to leave any ambigious interpretation. Cheers, Akinori@ rather personally this time _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
|