Have been going through the mails with respective views of all
participants. Intresting in content ,bluntness and respective perceptions. I agree only to the extent with Mathew that we need to put forth
the true motivations and concerns and there after put forth suggestions for
changes proposed with reasoning. Now lets see what Naresh is saying. Naresh is wanting that the
complete election system be discussed and see if improvements can be
incorporated which broad base the representation.(nothing wrong in motives
here) The experience of the current election and defeat of the candidate have
certainly motivated him( Nothing wrong in case you find something wrong and get
up and ask for changes to improve the system.) Like I have said in my earlier mail, there is something, be it
voting pattern, cartelization of votes… which is resulting in election
going in a predetermined direction. I propose that suggestions be sent to APNIC by the community
with following-: 1.
APNIC be asked to circulate the current system of elections ,
handling of votes, counting process and rules for problem resolving. APNIC may
ask for suggestions and proposals from the community on each of these issues. 2.
Suggestions of the community on number of terms for an
individual on the EC. 3.
How to address the issue of providing representation of smaller
countries on the EC. This may be done by organizing country lists into Large ,Medium,
Small. The Small and Medium being given a rotational seat in the EC. The APNIC EC in its wisdom may take on itself to go ahead and
get the above done as a proof of their desire to do best for the community. Col R S Perhar 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 Naresh, Again before you can move the debate to those three things
you need to create motivation for change. At the moment there is
scepticism not motivation for your suggested change. The three things you wish to change appear to be explicitly
about changing the make up of the EC by altering the rules. Given that
the EC appear to have the support of the members the desire for change by you
must be clearly explained. Especially as many have been repeatedly
reelected - which I see as a vote of confidence not a reason to remove them. My only suggestion for the issue last Friday is that the
scrutineers are selected by a vote of members from the floor to ensure that all
present are happy with them. I'm still at a point of debating the motivation for change
as I don't see, except from you, any desire. Regards, Matthew
What do you propose - please actually give 2. Equal voting strength to
each member & 3. Specified terms for the
elected Representative I am sure, sooner or later, we wud debate above said three areas
with dignity. Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
[mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] Naresh, My apologies for my continual bluntness, I
understand that this isn't culturally normal for a lot of APNIC countries, but
my feeling is that if we don't actually convey what we mean we will never
actually get to the bottom of the issue. We're going in circles. References
to the Olympics and ENRON aren't helping much. If you want change then I suggest you
outline precisely the changes to the rules you want and stop talking in
hyperbola. ie. write a set of rules you'd expect
people to vote on. At the moment I feel that your reasons for
wanting change have an impure motivation because of the constant hyperbola.
Currently you're wanting change but won't say precisely the rules you
want and you keep implicitly implying that good people are corrupt. None
of these are helping other members share your desire for change. One of the other reasons that I feel your
motives aren't pure is that you and others from India appear to be the ones who
are wishing change but it was the candidate and scrutineer from India who had
the connection which caused the issue last Friday. Please post a set of rules you think we
should change to so that we can debate and analyse them rather than talking in
Hyperbola. Regards, Matthew (Speaking, as always, for myself) On 10/03/2010, at 2:29 PM, Naresh Ajwani
wrote:
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
|