|
Dear Matthew, Atleast Independent
electoral body has the acceptance from other members also. Please feel free to refer
to the old mails from other members. You seem to have assumed
acceptance where there is none. Certainly not from me. Consensus can never be 100% but please don’t
keep hitting one country-it sounds racial and be careful. Changing to member based in
the face of IPv4 exhaustion seems to be a way of stacking the vote by
encouraging people to join for no other reason than voting. Wud appreciate your further elaboration to
understand your view point better. you have, despite demanding
change, actually offered no concrete changes other than one line suggestions. I have compiled my suggestions and motivation
from the old mails to correct your repeatedly imposed perceptions of one liner suggestionsJ. It’s
classified into three parts: 1. Suggestions 2. Thoughts from other
members 3. Motivation I.
SUGESSTIONS: “It’s about concerns which
broadly are as follows: 1. An Election Body shall be
responsible for conducting elections -“You cannot be a Judge in your own Cause”. 2. Guaranteed result, because of state of origin and distribution
of votes with one block based on the number of IPs procurement, is not a
true democracy or bottom-up process. Sadly, the voting process reflects on the
skewed understanding of democracy and shall be corrected - Internet is
the leveller and not the divider; “one who can afford to procure more IPs
can’t have more rights than the one who can’t” 3. Specified terms so
that all can get the representation in decision making of Internet policies.
Internet enables/connects any part of the world; the current process
is creating incumbency-fresh thoughts/approach is must for the growth of
Internet. “The proposed
reforms stand for all 56 countries and my last mail-point 2 i.e Voting Pattern
needs a review; please think from the Internet perspective-it fills up the
divide. Let’s attempt to change and give all inclusive approach.” “This transparency
has to come-how voting took place, number of votes casted to all
candidates....we can’t limit this information to selectd few.....” “New thoughts toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for
the members, though they may not be an issue with the already NIR possessing
members, viz., Why for so long there was a suspension of the NIR process... who
were responsible for it... Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts of CIR?” “NIR
was just one of the examples J Nowhere have I said that
we should change the entire election system. Please refer to my mail commenting
over 3 broad areas of concern. These concerns can be vetted by any expert/specialist
who wud also join the chorus. 1.
We need an electoral body—the existing system forces us to be a Judge for
our own cause. 2.
We need a process to facilitate 48 other
countries to have the representation in EC--- We can’t have
skewed democratic values and invite “Cartel/collusion
thoughts/comments” for our systems. 3.
We need new thoughts/faces on regular basis to
lead us--- Example: why not you be that new face? J “ “All three
solutions are reflecting the concerns too. J I
paste one of three areas again and highlight/underline the same, for your
reference: We need an electoral
body-the existing system forces us to be a
Judge for our own cause.
I elaborate the same also for your convenience: If I am an EC
and also be responsible for conducting/deciding on the election issues/concerns
of the contestants, it isn’t appropriate. If u want me to elaborate
further on the origin of the concern, it is possible but that way we wud lose
our objective-“Existence”; much above all the petty concerns. We shall focus on the positive side of this debate-if u think,
there is no need of electoral body and the ECs shall be responsible for the
same, I am okay to drop this debate at this juncture itself.” “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.” “We don’t wait for
an accident to occur to take an INSUARANCE. J I don’t think there is any challenge
over the need of an electoral college for conducting the elections. Now let me elaborate further on other two
areas of concern: 1. When we have
proportionate voting strengths to the size of our members why can’t we
have proportionate representation? Today
world’s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics. The most respected brand in the world where
just one participant from a country is lead by the mast holder in the same
esteem as the one representing a continent with 1000 members. In Olympics, the size doesn’t
matter and that’s why it is more respectable than the other brands. 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? 2. When there is a fixed
term for the ICANN Director, why can’t we have the fixed term for the EC
in APNIC?” “I
am here to particpate in the debate for Right Rules and Regulations and
therefore invite 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?” 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” II.
Thoughts from other members: “- change the structure of the EC? - have a AC like ARIN to deal with policy? - have the responsibility of the EC reduced
to just matters of the secretariat? - have a nominations/election committee with
independent bodies?” “More seriously, the
election system used by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the
Internet was much less deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning
to be used. I'm sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue
to evolve. Moving towards full electronic voting might
make sense now that entire countries aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.” III.
MOTIVATION DETAILING: “If we want to be an enlightened organisation, we shall
not hesitate in surfacing issues/concerns. Yours, that matter, everybody's help
in this regard wud be highly appreciated” “In my opinion, “Internet is the
leveller” but the table and the process of Elections are distinctively
dividing the region- I may be wrong in assuming the same but really dont know
that how Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many such countries can get the
representation in current EC structure. I also don’t know that how can we check
a situation like that as "Security Council" if 4 EC members from 3
countries of the same belt i.e. “majority” decides to block, say
for example some country wants to have NIR.” Before any reforms are undertaken, one
needs to understand the past scenario and the composition of EC (given below)
which can be a good starting point:
The table is obvious on many unspoken but visibly glaring
aspects which, coupled with certain important excerpts of the by-laws
reproduced below, will help in understanding the areas of concern as well as
the way forward for the esteemed APNIC-TALK group: The Executive Council: · .....the
Executive Council shall be composed of seven members elected at AGMs in
accordance with the provisions of by-laws. · Executive
Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in their personal capacity
and shall act in the best interests of the APNIC membership and not the Member
organisation to which that individual belongs. Only one individual per Member
organisation may be elected to sit on the Executive Council. Quorum · A
meeting of the Executive Council is duly constituted for all purposes if at the
commencement of the meeting there are present in person not less than one half
of the total number of Council members or their duly authorised
representatives. EC
Confidentiality · All
business undertaken by the EC is confidential to the EC. · All
EC members are requested to execute a formal non-disclosure undertaking with
APNIC · EC
members should respect this confidentiality by:
– not recording EC meetings
– not inviting other members to participate in, or
listen into EC meetings without the prior permission
of the Chair of the EC
– not circulating EC mail messages to any third
party without the express permission of the Chair
of the EC–not divulging any membership information of which they are
aware as an EC member. “My motivation is
my APNIC. Our APNIC” Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: Matthew
Moyle-Croft [mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] On 11/03/2010, at 1:58 AM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Dear Mathew, I agree with your suggestions and shall be the
responsibility of the independent electoral body constituted at the time of
announcement of election. Please don't twist my words. Where's your actual proposal
for "an independent electoral body"? You seem to have assumed
acceptance where there is none. Certainly not from me. This is APNIC, not a country.
The costs and complexity don't appear to give a useful outcome.
As before I think the current
resource based arrangement is fine. Changing to member based in the face
of IPv4 exhaustion seems to be a way of stacking the vote by encouraging people
to join for no other reason than voting.
2. Specified terms I don't see the motivation.
Especially when there doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment..
Fixed terms have the problem that they remove often good people for an
arbitrary reason. Again, given that you and
others are unhappy about the outcome of a just performed election where your
candidate didn't get elected I feel that your motivation for changing the
system immediately after is suspect. I would suggest that you
concentrate on not "changing the system" but actually focusing on
electing a candidate next time. Ensuring your proxies are in and that
your candidate is well known. Just having them well known in India is
not a reason for others to vote for them. This is a multinational
organisation that requires more from the candidates. A number of people who got
elected for instance are people that I've met, talked to and corresponded with
- all from different countries from my own. I'm also disappointed that
you have, despite demanding change, actually offered no concrete changes other
than one line suggestions. All of this I've said before
but we're still going in circles. Regards, Matthew (Speaking for himself)
Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani
|