Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
To remind you, the questions are:
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.
So as an interested individual, I'll make a few comments in-line. I will preface my comments that none of this appears to address the election procedures/process in any way, instead it strikes at deeper issues about the construction of the EC, the membership voting structure, and other topics regarding the overall administration of the secretariat.
Recalling an APNIC meeting a few years back, Akinori made a presentation to the membership highlighting that such changes are up to the membership to present to the EC for a membership vote via a SIG or Workgroup.
On 05/07/2010, at 10:29 PM, wtan at hush dot com wrote:
> 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.
From the perspective of an individual member with all equal membership rights, this is generally the voting structure that most membership based associations live by. One concern I would have here raises the question are all members equal? and if not, why not?
> 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.
One fixed term for life? I can't see that as being attractive. You need some level of retention.
I've always liked an implementation i've seen in another context where an exec member may take position for a maximum of 2 terms and must have at least a 1 term break before being able to stand for re-election.
>
> 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.
I think what you are reaching for here is adrift of reality. The director general is appointed by the EC. It is entirely up to the EC to seek the DG's resignation or termination. The DG is an employee (contracted or otherwise) of the Secretariat.
>
> apnic require a change in top order to move forward with fresh and
> new strategies.
The clincher here is that most good strategies are formed time-wise outside of the terms of tenure (for both EC and DG) that you mentioned. I agree that there does need to be a cycling of EC members for the sake of ongoing sustainability, but that needs to be tempered with the ability to retain the organisational knowledge.
> 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.
I'm ambivalent here. On one hand you might like to think that as an 'on-line' industry we meet in various locations far far too often, and on the other hand any opportunity to introduce newcomers to the policy, political, and governance process aspects is well worth it.
Given the meeting is about the policy process, would the policy process suffer is only one meeting existed?
>
> 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.
What I read between the lines here (apart from your concerns about travel) is that there almost appears to be a confusion about what a company board actually does. A Board rarely gets involved in the day to day running of an organisation. And to be honest that confusion is almost expected given that no EC (board member) gets paid to 'run' APNIC. For years I have thought that this was just the nature of the beast, but of late I am thinking that the structure here might not be optimal. Perhaps APNIC needs a "company Board" to address the concerns of the secretariat, and a "advisory Board" to address the resource policy concerns with liaison roles between the two.
Cheers