Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
I also have similar comments for this discussion. In particular,
> Seriously, you need to start thinking about how your opinions
> are being viewed on this list as the entire set of arguments
> appears to be entirely self serving.
>
> I'm extremely frightened of buying into any of this as it
> seems to be able a power grab and not in the actual interests
> of APNIC members.
for this part.
(Thank you for saving my time > Mattew)
If people has complaints for taking long time to make new NIR,
why don't they tackle to the issue directly, instead of criticizing DG and ECs?
If people was not elected, why don't they examine themselves
instead of trying to change whole of election system?
Rgs,
Masato
> -----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 2:43 AM
> To: Col. R. S. Perhar
> Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net; apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> They've done the right accounting thing, but it's not clear
> how much of travel/staff time/etc relates to each activity.
>
> You and others are making a big deal about it, however, both
> RIPE and ARIN appear to have very similar budgets/ratios etc:
>
> RIPE: http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/budget.html
> ARIN: https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html
>
> (I didn't include LACNIC or AFRINIC as they are significantly
> smaller by IPv4 addresses, members etc).
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> The EC has only a certain size. No matter what you want to
> do to gerrymander the system to suit yourself (ie. get your
> candidate elected) not everyone will have a place on the EC
> nor will every economy have a person working for APNIC.
>
> If you look very few economies have ever nominated for the
> EC. Maybe before changing the system you should be
> encouraging a more diverse range of people to nominate in the
> first place?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't see the argument as reasoned.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> See above.
>
> It's very very hard to take this whole argument seriously:
>
> 1) It all started when there was unhappiness about the
> Election at APNIC29 when proxies weren't submitted in time.
> 2) The same cohort have been claiming:
>
> - Mismanagement/Embezzlement/Incompetence/etc
> - Conspiracy from Western Nations (eg. Australians)
>
> 3) Now want to change the whole election system in a way that
> seemingly is designed to favour themselves.
> 4) No other economy except the one this cohort are from has
> made any comment
>
> Seriously, you need to start thinking about how your opinions
> are being viewed on this list as the entire set of arguments
> appears to be entirely self serving.
>
> I'm extremely frightened of buying into any of this as it
> seems to be able a power grab and not in the actual interests
> of APNIC members.
>
> MMC
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk