Dear Matthew, Three
core values of the Olympic Movement which demonstrate how Olympism can be
expressed in our lives. These values of Excellence, Friendship and Respect are
not only about winning but also about particpating. It’s about mutual
understanding among people from all over the world. It’s about respect
for rules and regulations. I
am not going to be divertedJ. I am here to particpate in the
debate for Right Rules and Regulations and therefore invites you all for the
following: 1.
Is it wrong to have electoral body for conducting the elections? 2.
Is it wrong to have voting pattern for EC as it is for
NRO NC election? 3.
Is it wrong to have fresh blood/thought on regular basis? Regards
and best wishes, Naresh
Ajwani PS:
I wud keep respecting you for your view points. J From: Matthew
Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] Hi Naresh, I think you're deliberately
not responding to people's questions. There isn't a problem here
except that your candidate didn't get elected and you and your compatriots feel
slighted. I still assert that you are
trying to (and the post below confirms it for me) dress this up as a conspiracy
against some nations within APNIC. Which, given India is one of the 9
nations to have had representation on the EC, is hilarious. You ARE actually asserting
corruption and underhandness where there is none. But you won't even
admit to that. Given this thread and what
has been alleged about the process of the election I think it's good the way
the election ended up. MMC On 10/03/2010, at 1:54 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Matthew, Push to the whistle blewers is nothing new. I
don’t find any such references made by you in my response. We are
debating the following: 1. Electoral body for the elections 2. Voting Strength 3. Term for EC The example of Enron is in response to the
brand example of Walmart.-Big brands and what we want to be as a brand. Regards and best wishes, Naresh Ajwani From: Matthew
Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] Naresh, Have you considered that it
maybe that the members of APNIC are voting for those who they think will serve
them best as members of the EC rather than a major conspiracy? Maybe rather than complaining
about the process the discussion needs to turn towards the candidates
themselves and why people didn't vote for them? Did they make an effort
to explain their skills, experience and credentials to the members?
Are they claiming that in fact the people elected are not suitable? Have you considered that by
writing what you did below you're effectively implying that the EC is corrupt?
Have you got some evidence to back this fairly serious claim? Really, this is a farce -
this isn't about the EC voting this is about people unhappy they weren't
elected and are trying to justify that by blaming other people. I think
some apologies to the EC are in order for trying to assert that they are
corrupt. MMC Speaking for himself On 10/03/2010, at 1:33 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear David, The big brand was even ENRON-lop sided
culture/norms give lop sided results. Push to the whistle blewers is nothing
new, my reference to OLYMPICS is in the context of RESPECT. 1. I have explained Electoral College/body in my
last mail. 2. Yes EC members are to represent themselves but
why don’t we research that how come with 30 members support few get
elected whereas despite 60 members support one is not elected. Kindly refer the
contexts. 3. We have started a debate, policy wud follow. My ENRON example shall clarify that it’s
better to correct things on time than to wait for enron. I have not referred to
ITU this time. J Regards and best wishes, Naresh Ajwani From: David Conrad
[mailto:drc at virtualized dot org] Naresh, On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:11 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
I suppose it depends on what
you mean by "electoral college".
1. When we have proportionate voting strengths to
the size of our members why can’t we have proportionate representation? Because, as has been pointed
out, the EC members (are supposed to) represent themselves, not their
organization, their country, their language, etc. If you believe they are
not representing themselves and are, instead, representing some specific subset,
then that would suggest the need of a recall, not necessarily of restructuring
representation.
Today
world’s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics. I thought the world's biggest
brand was Walmart.
Never
Mind, If we can have NRO NC election on single vote per member basis, why
can’t we have the same for the EC election? As I understand it, NRO NC
members each represent their RIR.
1. When there is a fixed term for the ICANN
Director, why can’t we have the fixed term for the EC in APNIC? I would imagine if the APNIC
community agrees this is a good thing, you can. However, it isn't clear
to me what problem you're solving with term limits and there are definitely
non-trivial implications of term limits. Have you submitted a policy
proposal to impose term limits?
The
call is ours, should we have the similar brand value of Olympics or allow the
organisations like ITU to puncture us forever because of a few ? I'm not sure why you're
attempting to bring the ITU into this discussion. If there are issues
with the structure of APNIC, those should be addressed directly and discussion
on solutions should be examined for their merits and costs rather than raising
the spectre of an external party. Regards, -drc <ATT00001..txt> -- Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and
DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000
Australia
|