Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 56
On 3/9/10 11:32 PM, "apnic-talk-request at lists dot apnic dot net"
<apnic-talk-request at lists dot apnic dot net> wrote:
> Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> apnic-talk-request at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> apnic-talk-owner at lists dot apnic dot net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Elections (Naresh Ajwani)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:01:57 +0530
> From: "Naresh Ajwani" <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com>
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
> To: "'Matthew Moyle-Croft'" <mmc at internode dot com dot au>
> Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Message-ID: <001f01cac023$c749eea0$55ddcbe0$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> My motivation is my APNIC. Our APNIC
>
> Regards
>
> From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au]
> Sent: 10 March 2010 10:55
> To: Naresh Ajwani
> Cc: David Conrad; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Please join the debate for three areas of concern:
>
> 1. The Electoral Body to conduct elections,
>
>
> 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]
> Sent: 10 March 2010 10:03
> To: Naresh Ajwani
> Cc: David Conrad; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>
> 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 diverted:-). 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. :-)
>
>
> From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au]
> Sent: 10 March 2010 09:01
> To: Naresh Ajwani
> Cc: David Conrad; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>
> 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]
> Sent: 10 March 2010 08:48
> To: Naresh Ajwani
> Cc: David Conrad; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>
> 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. :-)
>
> Regards and best wishes,
>
> Naresh Ajwani
>
>
>
>
>
> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized dot org]
> Sent: 10 March 2010 03:04
> To: Naresh Ajwani
> Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>
> Naresh,
>
> On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
> I don't think there is any challenge over the need of an electoral college for
> conducting the elections.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100310/63b35bb
> 5/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>
>
> End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 56
> ******************************************