Hi David, 1.
Once we agree the way-forward on the election
reforms, be assured that the proposed policy would follow. 2.
The proportional representation because of wealth
i.e. “more IP addresses mean more voting strength” is what I am
proposing to correct, 3.
The Formats of debate varies and we shall
allow the same J Regards Naresh Ajwani From: David
Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized dot org] Naresh, On Mar 9, 2010, at 7:03 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Sorry, I can't parse this.
Push to the whistle blewers is nothing new, my reference to OLYMPICS is in the context of RESPECT. Friends who have been
involved with the Olympics came away with something less than respect, but I
suspect that wasn't what you were referencing. I might suggest that due
to the varied cultures and languages represented on the apnic-talk list that
hyperbole and obtuse references are probably not as effective as you might
like.
Sorry, I must have missed it.
It would probably be more useful if it was documented in an actual policy
proposal.
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. I suspect your research will
show that it is due to proportional representation and the fact that the 30
members that voted for the incumbents were willing to vote for them again.
This doesn't seem surprising to me.
This seems exactly backwards
to me. How can one have a debate unless a policy
proposal is documented to the point where everyone understands what is being
discussed? Regards, -drc
|