[apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel
-----Original Message-----
From: Brajesh Jain [mailto:brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in]
Sent: 06 July 2010 13:32
To: 'MAEMURA Akinori'; 'terry at terrym dot net'; 'Skeeve at eintellego dot net'
Cc: 'apnic-talk at apnic dot net'
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
Dear friends,
I am very happy to see a glimpse of open discussion. As a person attending
both recent APNIC at KL and recent ICANN at Brussels ,I really felt vast
difference in approach. ICANN appeared to be so open and transparent.
Of course, I probably would not know much before I join APNIC EC. Mr
Maemura's response refers to' lots of things not disclosed' . Here is
paradox. My chances of getting to EC are bleak. Hence I would not know and
probably difficult for me to contribute. I would like to submit pointwise
[vote per member]
I entirely agree with the concern that users interest to be taken care.
How about community of users in countries, who have never got any chance to
EC?
The need here is how do we hear voice of all users and not of only few
regions.
Vote per member is surely a good option here.
[fixed term for the EC members]
I understand that Internet community consists of very large number of
members, very wise and committed with knowledge of history and experience.
The decisions should not be based only on experience and history knowledge
of few persons.
A member need not be an EC member to contribute. I refuse to believe one
needs to be in EC to contribute. Leadership challenge is to continually
develop the knowledgeable person pool. Experience and knowledge of past EC
members is welcome always.
One term of 2 years is on the low side. Two terms help achieve both learning
as well as contributing. Training new team is also an integral part of any
leadership.
[equal representation from subregions]
Defining the subregion is very difficult. Yes , this is the view from a
closed mind. With openness ,not at all. ICANN, ITU and UN have all along
shown the way.
There is need to first accept the there is problem in the present EC
structure. Once it is accepted, solutions would come by through effort and
leadership.
[Fixed term of DG]
Good to learn that The EC is responsible to hire the
Director General.
I just request to know, who is responsible for transparency of accounts.
We have repeatedly asked DG certain information like cost per IP for
different countries.
Present DG has not provided the same. I am sure that he is not being
advised by EC not to give account details. Recent ICANN Board meeting in
public forum at Brussels emphasized that there has to be full transparency
in accounts.
I do hope in next APNIC meeting, detailed accounts would be available to see
for all community members who want to see the details.
[mid-year meetings]
Two APNIC Meetings a year is surely good.
[travel]
Expenses and source of income is surely a matter of the community
discussion.
Accounts need to be shown with full details and transparency.
Any Corporate head decides on the basis of assured source of funds. Delaying
NIR formation should surely not be a source of fund.
Corporate heads are expected to manage expenses including travel.
With regards and humility that I am stating the above with limited
knowledge.
Brajesh C Jain
Spectranet
-----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 MAEMURA Akinori
Sent: 06 July 2010 10:55
To: terry at terrym dot net; Skeeve at eintellego dot net
Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
Hi Colleagues,
Thank you very much for the discussion. I could just keep
quiet here, or even I could think I should do so, but on the
other hand it should be good for the Community to have
thoughts from the EC side.
Here I put several points along the discussion - they are
largely not at a single side but both sides included. They
are not an official position which the EC has, but it would
be nice of you to have them as an opinion from a community
member who have been long in the EC.
[vote per member]
It is already long since the vote per member was raised as
an issue. It is a question of fairness, and it is really
difficult in terms of diversity of sense.
One vote per one member should be fair if we thought it on
member basis - any single member has a vote with equal power.
It should at the same time be unfair if we would think on
user basis. A bigger member holds a bigger base of assignment
or end users. Here it might harm the interest of users who
are connected to bigger LIRs.
It is a tough question for the Membership which is a composite
of smaller and bigger members.
[fixed term for the EC members]
Yes I am a long standing EC member since October 2000. If
it were favourable, I am definetely too long. When I joined,
I needed to learn a lot of things which were not disclosed,
as well as things publicly known but difficult. I do think
I was better to work in the EC than I had been in the previous
term, here the more experience works for the better job.
I agree that a new member will bring fresh and new thoughts
and new capability which he/she has gained through his/her
own profession, which will benefit the EC and APNIC. At the
same time the EC sometimes need the knowledge which is only
gained from the detailed history, which old timers can often
contribute.
[equal representation from subregions]
It is great if we could have the geographical diversity within
the EC. But as Terry, who has rich experience in APNIC, said,
defining the subregion is very difficult. We might again have
a similar question of fairness like we have with vote per
member question.
[Fixed term of DG]
This is very different from the three above which are the
matters of Membership. The EC is responsible to hire the
Director General.
The EC is more than happy to have a variety of opinions from
the Membership, but I think it should be left to the EC.
We are pretty satisfied with Paul Wilson's job right now,
and it is still hard to find a reason for new blood there.
[mid-year meetings]
We have two APNIC Meetings a year - one is in summer and the
other is in winter with APRICOT. I think it is adequate for
the APNIC Community spread out all over the region to get
together. It is interesting to have another small meeting,
but if small mean limited number of participants, subregional
activities like *NOG, PACINET are good and APNIC has already
been involved in them.
[travel]
This is very popular to be raised as an issue. I think it
would be only obvious that IF every staff and EC member in
any occasion fly economy seat, moreover at the tail of it,
then there would be no question. The current situation is
not that.
It is a matter of treatment and/or work condition that the
cooporate entitles to an employee or an officer. In general,
assumptions and circumstances are very different from
corporate to corporate, and the head of corporate, which is
the DG in our case, manages its business there. It means
that once we raise one aspect as an issue, we need to refer
another aspect as the implication.
I don't think that fits to the community discussion, frankly
speaking, but thank you for sharing your perspective.
[advisory committee]
Two points. 1: that of ARIN is for policy development process.
2: I personally am happier to have inputs like this manner.
It went terribly long, but I hope it will work for the discussion.
Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori - a community member who is long within the EC
In message <40536DD1-E9D9-45C6-BB89-CBBC2024F331 at terrym dot net>
"Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel"
"Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>" wrote:
|
| On 06/07/2010, at 10:10 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
|
| > 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.
|
| That can/could/might happen now. The immediate knee-jerk reaction is 'why
does a larger member get more votes?' Do they have a more valid opinion of a
candidate for the EC? or on other Membership Voting topics?
|
| >
| > - 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.
|
| Closing out a person for life after any set number of terms looses the
knowledge base in that persons head. It also limits them from returning with
a fresh positive take on something.
|
| >
| > - Equal representation across Asia Pac? What do you mean by that?
|
| I think that is undefinable.
|
| >
| > - 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.
|
| sigh.. its up to the EC. I'm not a fan of fixed terms without extension.
In a not for profit that could lead to gouging by the appointed staff
member, ie "I'm only here for 7 years, I might as well get out of it what I
can". There have been many examples of these agency costs in history.
|
| >
| > - 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.
| >
|
| Thats an interesting idea!!
|
|
| > - 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.
| >
|
| Speaking as someone who does a fair amount of international travel. You
need to consider the health and well-being of the employee directed to
travel in the name of business. A number of sensible organisations i know of
have a policy that mandates business or premium seating for any combinations
of continuos legs that exceed 6 hours. That is based solely on the
expectation that the employee 1) has a right to healthy travel conditions,
and 2) that the employee is expected to arrive in a condition being able to
represent the organisation. (and for a company that I am on the board for,
that means limited alcohol on the flight)
|
| If you are thinking about the larger concern of the travel budget, then
perhaps I would argue that only strictly necessary individuals are sent to
international meetings, or perhaps call for some level of collaboration at
the NRO level for information sharing such that the duplication of rir
attendees at meetings is reduced, perhaps saving all rirs some money.
|
| > 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
|
| trust me.. the extra day doesn't always work. 12+ hours for me in economy
is excruciating, stressful, and a health risk - and takes more than a nights
sleep to recover from.
|
| > more than $2000 extra on a ticket? Even if you factor the daily wage of
the DG/senior staff, the savings here is significant.
|
| So is their health.
|
| >
| > 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).
|
| And what was your analysis of that?
|
| >
| > 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.
|
| T.
| _______________________________________________
| 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