Re: [apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel
Thank you for your input. Now I have been a regular
participant in ICANN meetings as well since June 2009 in
Sydney, and have found a lot of things from its governance
scheme.
I agree ICANN is wonderful in terms of its transparency, and
I argue APNIC as well.
You picked up my words 'lots of things not disclosed'.
Let me clarify that it didn't mean APNIC hides too many
information. As the representative of APNIC's Membership
to oversee the Secretariat, the Exective Council holds
a certain amount of delicate and in-detail information with
DG and Secretariat, which should not be disclosed. The EC
members sign NDAs for this purpose. I am sure ICANN BoD has
the same situation and I suppose they hold much more since
ICANN has a number of law suits.
It is generally the case for the board of any corporations,
and that's what I meant.
Regarding the per IP cost in your words, I was in the ISPCP
meeting where you (or your colleague? ) mentioned about it.
Unfortunately since it was the meeting within Generic Name
Supporting Organization, I am afraid it was not relevent
there.
I am not so sure what you exactly mean by the words, and in
general, the per address unit price of APNIC membership fee
varies *from member to member*. A larger member has lower
unit price. Currently I have no idea the Secretariat can
respond to the request with a reasonable effort, in terms of
the cost for that or of appropriateness, subject to what you
exactly need.
I am not either so sure what you exactly mean by "full
transparency". I don't think you mean "until any single
evidence", which obviously Secretariat cannot achieve.
ICANN's budget planning (e.g. FY11 budget recently ratified)
shows only break-down by budget segments. If you mean you
are satisfied with that granularity of ICANN's, it might be
good for us to study.
Regarding transparency, our development in recent years is
having Tresurer Report to explain that.
Your input here should be a guidance for the EC to make
improvement plan for it if so needed. Thank you very much.
Kind Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori
In message <170E0F26927B4C5A989A3A08E704465C@in.spectranet.com>
"[apnic-talk] FW: APNIC EC Election Review Panel"
"Brajesh Jain <brajesh.jain at spectranet dot in>" wrote:
|
|
| -----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
|
| _______________________________________________
| apnic-talk mailing list
| apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
|