Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
On Jul 5, 2010, at 5:29 AM, wtan at hush dot com wrote:
> one member one vote to have fair and equitable.
So, you believe two people should be able to outvote an organization representing 2 billion people? This is 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.
Historically, it was difficult to find enough people to actually run for the EC so there would actually be a need to vote. Nice to see things have changed.
Term limits, particularly short ones, have the disadvantage that they invariably results in greater dependence on staff, but do have the advantage that it forces change in the elected body. The most common approach has been to fix the number of terms (2 or 3 seems typical), with a term being between 2 and 6 years.
> equal representation across asia pacific region.
Not sure what this means (particularly in light of "one member one vote").
> 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.
The DG is APNIC's President/CEO. I don't know of many (any?) stable corporations that fire their CEO after a maximum of 5 years and hire a new one. The end result of this policy would be to make the DG more of a ceremonial title, moving operational power to staff. Not sure I see the value of this.
BTW, it was really challenging finding a new DG when I resigned in '98. I personally believe the APNIC community was very lucky that Paul was available.
> 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.
An interesting assertion. Is this backed up by responses to surveys?
> it is a waste of
> members fees. apnic meeting should only be once a year along with
> apricot.
I guess a lot depends on what gets done at meetings. My experience is that the fewer meetings, the slower policy updates occur.
> members are there to fund luxuriuos travel of director general.
Err, no. Perhaps you meant "not fund"? In any event, the DG and staff are, of course, there to serve the members.
> apnic is a not for profit body and it is responsible to manage its
> finances with in the means.
As far as I can tell (but will admit I haven't been following things too closely), APNIC has been managing its finances effectively. Do you have some evidence that this is not so?
> 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.
You're accusing the DG of misappropriating funds "for personal luxury"? That's pretty serious. What evidence do you have?
Regards,
-drc