Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
-----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 Matthew Moyle-Croft
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 1:05 PM
To: Desi Valli
Cc: apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net; apnic-talk at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
On 09/07/2010, at 4:37 PM, Desi Valli wrote:
> I'm not from a native English speaking country. However, what I can
interpret from few of the conversations is that no one is accusing anyone of
misappropriation, but of mismanagement. In any corporate, not all
mismanagement happens due to rubbing hands or connivance with senior
members. But also happens due to incapability and inefficiency, which is
non-intentional in nature. The purpose of few highlights seem to be of
mismanagement and not of misappropriation.
>
> 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%.
Maybe APNIC just needs to rearrange the numbers - ie. if
travel/organisation/staff time etc is used for grant, meetings & trainings
then it presents that as a "cost of meeting".
You might find that the numbers skew very differently.
R S Perhar-- Are we to understand that Imaginative(using a polite word)
accounting is required to justify APNIC accounts? Strange.
I'm quite disappointed that a particular contingent here appears, after
having not succeeded in being voted into the EC to basically accuse everyone
else of mismanagement, misappropriation, incompetence etc and wanting to
change the voting system as well as add gerrymandering. Not to mention
people implying directly that APNIC is like this because it's run by
Australians.
R S Perhar- Matthew the issue is not so simple as you appear to reduce it to
with sarcasm. The cry for change comes when it is felt that some injustice
is being done or is perceived to be done. Lets take the case of EC.
The presenting voting system has been so exploited and if I may say
cartelized, that no matter what, only a few people can win. APNIC divides
the asia pac region into four economies ie South, Southeast, Central-east,
and Oceania. Is it not surprising that majority EC are only from a region
and will keep being so. When we talk of representation from all regions we
mean all regions, and if is not seeming to happen then well obviously the
aggrieved will raise the issue. Whats wrong with that? That's how democratic
institutions work. I certainly do not prescribe to any wild allegations,
heresay, rumours etc but a reasoned argument as given by Valli needs to be
considered on merit and not innuendo.
Here I wish to suggest that since we have well defined areas as defined by
APNIC then lets devise a system of elections where each of these regions
throws up Two EC each. The elections can be held within the respective
region. In this way we can have a truly composite EC which is representative
of all regions of APNIC.
MMC
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk