Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
I don’t see any need of evidence more than the annual report. The total spent on grant, meetings & trainings that are considered to be the benefits for members, is only 2.3%, where as operation/admin/general expenses constitutes 97.7%.
Optimisation, maximisation, efficiency and effectiveness leads to productivity. Let the current management demonstrate the strategic steps taken to improve productivity. While the revenue increased and cost on benefits to members (like training) decreased, the operation/admin expenses went upward. This illustrates the lack of visions of the current management. The primary goal must be to address the issues of members. Let's see the possible benefits/issues that could be highlighted for the current discussion.
1. IPv6 adaptation, utilization and proliferation - For this there must be enough micro regional training and meetings. But the total spent last year including other training was only 1.2%. Out of 56 economies that APNIC handles, only 17 economies were given with training on IPv6.
2. Grant through ISIF that benefits the society by way of community training was just 1.1%. Out of 22 economies requested, 8 were granted with a mere 40K USD per economy.
3. Reduction in cost of resources is one of the objectives of any organisation. IP address is a resource, and organisations tent to expect a cost reduction in IP addresses too. All internet resources like bandwidth, Interconnection charges, datacenter space, cost of router/server/switch etc., has gone down drastically in the last decade, except IP addresses that had upward trend. - No action is taken till date in this regard.
Now on what basis, do we state that EC is addressing the issues of members and doing necessary for the benefits of members?
While nobody doubts the intent of the ECs or other management members, it is important that the root cause is identified. Perhaps, the ideas and efforts of the current EC may not be good enough to improve the productivity, hence not benefiting the members. In such scenario, isn’t it ideal to give opportunities to new comrades to bring in new innovative ideas that will enhance the performance of APNIC? How do we bring in new idea without letting new members to participate in the operational teams?
The current by-laws of election almost restricts the opportunity for any newer contestant to get elected unless supported by the current EC members. The ECs are to be elected by members not by IP addresses. It is similar to saying that if a citizen pays more income tax, their right to vote changes accordingly. No democracy works in that way. Hence forth the recommendation is an election reform;
1. One member One Vote.
2. Limited period for ECs.
3. Independent election panel
4. Minimum regional representation
5. Online only voting process, accessible only to the independent election panel.
Regards,
Desi Valli.
-----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 David Conrad
Sent: 08 July 2010 11:21 PM
To: Sameer Bhagwat
Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
Sameer,
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:19 AM, Sameer Bhagwat wrote:
>> You're accusing the DG of misappropriating funds "for personal luxury"? That's pretty serious. What evidence do you have?
> You are a former APNIC Director General and you are still askign for evidence.
Well, yes. I was DG more than a decade ago. This doesn't give me any special insight into the internal workings of APNIC today, particularly of any alleged misappropriations.
> So as an evidence how about we look at Mr Wilson's travel records for the last ten years or may be travel, accommodation, renumeration?
Typically, accusers have evidence before making public accusations.
> apnic is a membership based not-for-profit business and everything needs to be open to its members.
APNIC is a business and as such, has appropriate confidentiality concerns (e.g., personnel records, proprietary networks plans submitted for justification of requests, etc). While I believe APNIC, as part of the bottom-up address policy definition mechanism, strives for openness and transparency as a component of its legitimacy, I'm curious as to why you believe its status as a not-for-profit demands "everything needs to be open to its members".
> With due respect to Mr Wilson for his last ten years service and for what he has doen to APNIC but David, APNIC is not Mr Wilson's regime and nor it is his gold mine. its time that he step down and make way for fresh blood. enough is enough.
Paul Wilson, as Director General, is the chief executive officer of APNIC and is employed at the discretion of the APNIC Executive Council which is elected by and acts on behalf of the membership. The Executive Council, with a 3/5th majority, can elect to remove the DG if they feel that is appropriate. The membership can, with a 2/3rds majority, amend any EC decision. You seem to believe Paul has acted inappropriately, yet have not explained why other than to insinuate he is traveling inappropriately and/or misappropriating funds (treating APNIC as "his gold mine"). I've gotten no indication that the EC is particularly unhappy with Paul's performance of his duties. What exactly "enough" are you talking about?
> APNIC's business is to distribute and manage ip addresses its not a rocket secience. so why it is costing so much to perform this task that Mr Wilson incresed member fees more than twice now and he might increase it again. Though this fee is neglible compare to the amount we pay for purchaisng equipment still is a cost to our business.
>
> APNIC should be looking at cutting down expneses and cutting down staff numbers rather than increasing the fees. Once again apnic business is distributing and managing ip addresses not managing the world issues travelling around the world in business class with members fees.
Historically, APNIC has performed services requested by its membership and those services included more than simply handing out IP addresses. Providing those services obviously cost money. If the membership feels some services are superfluous, then they should demand those services be cut. Which services do you believe are superfluous?
As for travel policy, it always is controversial, particularly when you aren't the one doing the travel. There is a balance between cost of travel, benefits the travel brings, and the implications on staff. I know when I was DG, about the last thing I wanted to do was get on another airplane, but the role demanded it. It was, in fact, a contributor to my decision to resign. Undoubtedly there can be cost savings by reducing the number of meetings APNIC staff attend or how the staff attends those meetings, but I'll be surprised if there is a massive cost savings.
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
Message sent using India’s leading Hosted Microsoft Exchange service.
For details visit http://net4.in/net4app/aspx/Exchange/exchangeIntro.aspx
Please consider the environment before printing.