MM, I am not proposing discontinuation of EC at all. But yes, for
any individual nothing shall be acceptable, including IPv4 exhaustion at the
cost of all inclusiveness. Moreso, why we are doubting that the reforms wud
bring negative ECs or why only a few are positive and the rest are negative and
have self-interest. Justification for the same being resisted may sound bigger at
this moment but when it wud come to decisiveness, this struggle wud get support
from all those who believe in: 1.
Independent electoral body, 2.
No proportionate voting & 3.
Regular New blood/ideas Regards & best wishes, Naresh Ajwani From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
[mailto:mmc at internode dot com dot au] Naresh, Changing the by-laws of APNIC requires more than just a
policy change, hence you need to convince at least 2/3 of the VOTES of members.
At the moment I think you'd struggle a bit to do that as there doesn't
appear to be a great deal of justification of the changes and why that would
actually benefit members. In this time of change with IPv4 running out I see more
benefit in experience and long term stability in the EC rather than trying to
alter a system that no one's explained why it's worth changing other than in
their own self interest. Having an EC which has long term members right
now appears to be a positive not a negative to me at least. MMC On 26/03/2010, at 1:51 AM, Naresh wrote:
MM wrote: ..... So
you're going to need to do a bit more convincing than you've done
currently." Naresh: I am
humbled. "Bit
more"-Sure, the policy proposal wud cover it. J Regards
and best wishes Naresh
Ajwani -----Original
Message----- On
24/03/2010, at 11:48 PM, Naresh wrote: > Hi
Terry, > > On
March 24, Terry wrote >
" I also question if the APNIC region is mature enough across the board to > run
as a '1 member 1 vote' mechanism." > >
Naresh responded: > >
APNIC has largest emerging economies, largest democracy and maturity in > accordance.
Fundamentally, we believe in equality; 1 Member=1 Vote :-) So, one
vote might represent an APNIC member who has a million IPv4 users and one vote
might represent an APNIC member with a single small IPv4 range? Is
that more fair? I've got really IPv6 customers and soon will
have many more - does their future interest beyond IPv4 deserve more than one
vote compared to people who have no IPv6 at all? Fair is
harder than it superficially seems. But I'm
still stuck on WHY the changes are worth while. You're wanting
change but to have these changes happen will require more than 66% as per Part
III 25 of the by-laws. So you're going to need to do a bit more
convincing than you've done currently. MMC=
|