Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
1. One member one vote - The objective of any voting and therby selection of
candidates is that the respective candidates will work for the benefit of
the APNIC community and not a company or a country or a region.If this holds
true then to say that company a has more resources hence has to have more
influence would go against the principle that APNIC works for the whole
community and not interested blocks.I feel that in case we have one vote for
each member the representation would be more diversified and responsive to
community needs with no block having any kind of supremacy.
2. Fixed terms- yes it makes sense.New blood needs to come in at regular
intervals with newer thoughts,imagination ,expertise. It will also result in
no interests digging themselves deep into the system.2 terms of 2 years each
as EC is enough to provide continuity of experience as well as give benefits
of change. As far as tenure of DG is concerned a two tenures of four years
or max five years each, totaling 8 or 10 years is enough for a DG again for
reasons of continuity and benefits of change.
3. Travel expenses- Yes there is a need to look into the travel expenses and
bring rationalization viv a vis the budget.Buisness Class travel is
expensive and should be resorted to only rarely by most of the staff.DG and
the EC may resort to Buisness class and the rest should use economy class
only.
Best regards
Col R S Perhar
-----Original Message-----
From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
[mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:40 AM
To: wtan at hush dot com; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
Cc: exec-secretary at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
Hey William,
My thoughts on the below.
- One member one vote. I'd like to agree, but it doesn't fairly represent
larger members with more at stake. It also enables stacking.
- Fixed 3 year terms for EC members - one term only. Well, not massively
opposed - perhaps 2 terms, but I agree that there seems to be a pattern of
encumbants getting re-elected which stops new blood getting in. Maybe 2
terms max for 2 year terms.
- Equal representation across Asia Pac? What do you mean by that?
- Director General Fixed term 5 years only once. Ok, I half agree. There
should be a limit, but I do acknowledge that it takes a while to get the
experience, relationships and everything involved with being the DG... is 5
years enough? You take one year to go to some meetings and get a handle, 3
years doing the job and 1 year to find the successor. I am a believer that
no job should 'be for life', and Paul has been there for 10 years... and it
takes a long time to get the amount of experience he has gained on all the
committees, organisations and so on that he is involved in. That said,
there is always room for improvement and new blood often brings this. So...
5 years, I think is too short, 7 years seems more reasonable. And in no
disrespect at all to Paul, but I do support fixed terms with no extension
and think that APNIC could benefit from some new leadership. That said, I'm
not opposed to former DG's taking on some other sort of role in the
organisation.
- Mid-year meeting. APNIC is NOT Apricot, or the other way around. The
mid-year meeting has value. This industry is moving too fast to only have
interaction once a year. I believe there should be more 'micro' meetings.
I'd like to see them quarterly, with a specific focus - maybe only a weekend
or something.
- APNIC members fund DG luxurious travel. OK, I do agree with this partly.
I am VERY concerned that APNIC staff spend way too much time in business
class. The amount of APNIC staff that travelled to KL in business-class was
excessive in my opinion. I think that too many staff at APNIC spend way
more time travelling in premium seating while clocking up tons of frequent
flyer points for their personal usage. I think that all FF points should be
owned by the business and used first if possible for travel. The travel
budget is way too high I believe.
That said... when a staff member is representing APNIC and is flying with
short notice, or arriving just before they are speaking/meeting - then I'd
like to understand the wisdom of not planning travel a little better. Is
the difference between Business Class and Economy is significant.
Example: Sydney to Amsterdam. Business Class - $4476. Economy
$1100-$2000.
So would it not be prudent to get there a day earlier to recover/sleep and
spend $300 on a hotel room than more than $2000 extra on a ticket? Even if
you factor the daily wage of the DG/senior staff, the savings here is
significant.
William, I agree with your message, but not the way you deliver the last
paragraph. It is very accusatory and rude. You will not be taken seriously
if you approach the situation like this.
I had concerns about the travel budgets before the last meeting and asked
the DG/EC for a report on the travel expenses which they provided (albeit
slowly).
What I would like to see is something like an Advisory Committee of members
only... that the EC can consult on member issues. ARIN has this and I think
it would be useful for APNIC to consider it.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of wtan at hush dot com
> Sent: Monday, 5 July 2010 10:29 PM
> To: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Cc: exec-secretary at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
>
> Hi APNIC
>
> This is a well respected decision taken by the apnic ec. here are
> my responses
>
> one member one vote to have fair and equitable.
> fixed term for an ec member of 3years. after this fixed term ec
> member is not to be eligible for the post for life.
> equal representation across asia pacific region.
>
> at the same time, i strongly recommend to make the apnic director
> general post a fixed term. a director general can only serve apnic
> for maximum 5years with no extension.
>
> apnic require a change in top order to move forward with fresh and
> new strategies. for example, apnic meeting in mid year of no value
> to its members but apnic continues to provide it. it is a waste of
> members fees. apnic meeting should only be once a year along with
> apricot.
>
> members are there to fund luxuriuos travel of director general.
> apnic is a not for profit body and it is responsible to manage its
> finances with in the means. i suggest apnic ec take more control of
> the day to day activities of apnic and put a new director general
> in place for every 5 years so this position do not abuse members
> funds for personal luxury.
>
> rgrds
> william tan
>
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >_
> >____
> >
> >APNIC EC Election Review Panel
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >_
> >____
> >
> >
> >The Executive Council of APNIC has recently established an
> >independent
> >Election Review Panel. This has been done in order to examine this
> >topic
> >with an independent and neutral perspective.
> >
> >The members of the review panel are:
> >
> > - Adiel Akplogan
> > - Save Vocea
> > - Philip Smith
> >
> >The EC has appointed each of these individuals because they are
> >well-known members of the APNIC community who were present at the
> >APNIC
> >29 Members Meeting, they are not associated with an organizational
> >Member of APNIC, and they did not take part in the Executive
> >Council
> >election process in any way.
> >
> >The brief of this Panel is to prepare a factual report of the
> >events of
> >the EC election in March 2010 and consider the following
> >questions:
> >
> > 1. Were the election procedures followed?
> >
> > 2. Was the integrity of the election impaired in any manner?
> >If
> > so, how?
> >
> > 3. To provide recommendations as to how the conduct of the EC
> > election process could be improved, as appropriate.
> >
> >The purpose of this notice is to request community input to the
> >review
> >panel, addressing the questions being considered by the panel.
> >
> >Please address your response to this call for community input to:
> >
> > exec-secretary at apnic dot net
> >
> >We would appreciate it if you could ensure that you submit your
> >response
> >before Monday, 5 July 2010.
> >
> >The Election Review Panel will review the responses received from
> >this
> >community input, the video recording of the meeting and the
> >associated
> >transcripts, and the relevant APNIC corporate documents as part of
> >its
> >brief. The Election Review Panel will submit its report to the
> >APNIC
> >Executive Council.
> >
> >
> >
> >Geoff Huston
> >Secretary to the APNIC Election Review Panel
> >
> >On behalf of the Election Review Panel:
> >Adiel Akplogan, Save Vocea and Philip Smith
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >_
> >____
> >Geoff Houston exec-
> >secretary at apnic dot net
> >Secretary to the APNIC EC
> >Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858
> >3100
> >PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858
> >3199
> >Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD
> >http://www.apnic.net
> >___________________________________________________________________
> >_
> >____
> > * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk