First of all I as a supporter of the reforms getting proposed, would like to convey some of my opinions which I feel is important. The topics are getting deviated, hence thought it would be better if I express. The suggestions given for election reform, is an action plan for some of the problems that some sections of the members have felt in the last few years. It is been proposed as a solution to those problems, and there is no intent of politicising
anything. The primary concern is the feel of few sections of the members that their concerns are not heard or been ignored for the reasons of lack of understanding the ground reality. Let me try to draft this in a strategic point of view, by picking up one
of the issues. (it will be too cumbersome to take every issue for discussion in this forum) Problem: Cost of resources. Actions attempted: Last 6-7 years, the member community has highlighted issues of cost of IP, currency fluctuation and issues that are caused due to market dynamics of a particular region. The solution proposed by demanders: Let the price of IP addresses be based on per-capita of a country instead of standardisation. While such solution seem to be difficult from an implementation perspective, the management (including
EC), offered discounts to LDC by 50%. An appreciate-able action plan, even though the proposal was pending for years for decision. But better late than never, I appreciate this step. However, for developing countries the usual answer we get is; 1. Is the APNIC fee makes a huge difference in the overall business cost? 2. The operational cost of APNIC need to be considered while some decision of this kind need to be taken. Other than the above to response there were no scientific reasons on why there shall not be a reduction in prices of IP addresses. Now, let's address these two responses. 1. As far as the answer to the first question is concern, the responsibility of reduction in cost of operations always remain with every organisation. While, such responsibilities are addressed, everyone tries to see available avenues,
and it is an on-going process. Now, to understand the significance of few thousand dollars from a developing country perspective, it is important to understand the geo-political environment of those countries. Unless, we understand the ground realities, it
is impossible to accept a happening as a problem. This is not pertinent only between countries but sometimes within a country too. For instance, I'm from a small village-town where I paid 16Rs (0.35USD) per year as my school fees (yes its per yearJ).
Even now, after 20 years of me completing the school, it has increased the fees to 25 Rs (0.54USD). While I express these to my colleagues in Delhi, where I live now, they can't accept or understand. But this is a reality of the economic condition of this
side of the world. PS: The above said instance need to be taken as an example for understanding the importance of costing in developing country perspective, not to be ignored with statements like irrelevant in this context etc., But to add more to this, we can correlate the importance of cost with the penetration levels of broadband in the developing countries. I don’t mean that the cost is totally because of IP address. But cost is one of the reasons, and it
is our responsibility that we address the cost issue holistically, be it IP address or Bandwidth price. For a country like India with a per-capita of less than 3000 USD, every $ is a concern. If the authorities fail to accept this reality, then it is nothing
but ignorance of reality of divergence in economic status. 2. Now answering the number two reason: If the cost of operations of APNIC is high, we wanted to participate and understand, whether there shall be anything that could be done by a person who is from a different geography, who shall understand the needs of this side of the
world. But to address any issue and take a judgment it is important to understand both the side. Hence, we wanted to be part of the EC team, and we followed the by-laws as is. But later, it is clear that there shall never be participation because of the current
loopholes. Yes, the proposal of election reform could be a result after the lost election. But the intent is not to politicise but to resolve the core issue that this part of the world faces. This is a scientific approach, not a political approach.
a.
What is the need (one of the needs): The cost of IP need to be addressed.
b.
Where is the need: For most of the developing countries.
c.
Why is the need: The current generation is responsible for making developing countries into the leagues of developed countries. My grandfather hasn’t set everything for me that I enjoy today. It is me, who has to fight all odds
to set the standard of living of myself. While everyone of this part of the world thinks like this, they are becoming innovative. We offer mobile calls at 0.01USD, and no developed world can think off. So, Answer to why the cost need to reduced, is a localised
matter and not to be questioned by those who hasn’t been in the ground.
d.
When is the need raised: for the last 6-7 years.
e.
Who is to fulfil the need: Local Market, which is depending upon the monopolistic model of operations.
f.
How shall it be addressed: Approach the authorities at APNIC. We approached and we were back to square one with the same answer – Cost of operation. When you analyse the cost of operation, that is not in line with what a stake holder will wish it should be. (Enough highlights are given already). What is wrong if some stakeholders feel that there is a room to improve the health of
finance of APNIC with innovative strategies to improve productivity. Now for any strategic planners, the option left with is alternative solutions. In normal circumstances, we go to competition. But as said, it is a monopolistic model. Then what else is left with.
g.
Identified Alternative HOW: Participate as part of the decision making group and see whether there shall be alternative options open for consideration. Henceforth, it is decided that there shall be participation by a member from
this side of the world. But now comes the barrier. There shall never be up-lift-ment of the poor ever (with lesser IPs but more members), because the rich people (with large-pool of IPs but less in terms member count) elect the parliament, hence forth the
views of the elected members are almost of the rich people. Even though the constitution states that the elected member shall be independent and neutral, in reality the system doesn’t allow that to be. Of course, there will be priorities to those who voted
us. That’s human psychology. So, your requirements will be ignored because of lack of credible ground reality information, you won’t be heard, you can’t ever get elected and contribute to the cause because of current system, then what else is supposed to be done
other than demanding for reforms. (one more option is being open in supporting CIR of ITU) Even in real world, all reforms are initiated by those who felt suppressed and discriminated. Let’s not create a scenario of real world at least in this wonderful virtual world. Try to understand the demand by keeping ourselves in others
shoes, not with a predetermined and conclusive mind.
h.
Available alternative Solution: The Election reform proposal is nothing but a methodically derived solution for the problems that this side of the world faces. In case if other members feel that this solution is wrong and have
any other alternative solution for the problems, isn’t it better to propose such solutions rather than rejecting the needs of some sections of members. Simple rejections show that we do not have solution but want to be defensive, that’s not constructive.
If APNIC is a corporate, then members are stake (Share) holders, they have all rights to demand a cost reduction so that the investors (members in this instance) get better returns (reduction). Are we saying, that there shall not be
a demand from the stakeholders? Will such demands be termed as politicising? If we fail to even recognise the needs of the stakeholders, how do we even attempt to look for solutions if any. Rejections of demands of section without valuable reasons of a society
shows a imperialistic approach. A member as a stake holder has all right to demand a cost reduction in operations. Why that be criticised as politicising. Comments like inefficiency are supposed to be defended by the authorities who are in responsibility. Not by another
stake holder. Authorities may choose to demonstrate the works and efforts that they had taken in the past or taking in the future for the demands of this part of the world, so that the points that were over-looked by the this segments of the members shall
be corrected. They are answerable to each and every member. Instead of that, why do we rotate the same old wheel. I’m not able to understand why no one is attempting to explain the good reasons to continue the current models without any reforms. Instead why do we criticise the reform proposal. Will it not be constructive if the positive aspects
of the current models are highlighted and left on to members to take their judgement?
I haven’t seen any measurable, quantifiable and productive inputs on;
·
why the current election process is good for all sections of the members.
·
How is it benefiting the members.
·
How is it not discriminating the members.
·
How shall it address the future geo-political demands of this side of the world.
·
How it shall not help to have geographical divisions in the APAC Internet society in the near future?
·
Why and how it shall contribute to the growth of Internet, especially in the developing world.
·
Why such outdated models shall not create issues like CIR? (replacement of monopolistic model) If the operational cost needs to be addressed, then there shall be participation from those sections of members who feel the heat and try to find alternatives than what is practised today, that shall improve the efficiency of APNIC’s
operation, thus reducing the cost of operations. For which an election reform is required. Isn’t that scientific conclusion. Why do we respond with a defensive approach. Let’s make this conversation productive, constructive and other members who are part of
the developed world shall contribute with alternative solutions if any. But please understand the issues of this side before taking any judgments. Instead of giving positive inputs on the current policies, twisting languages into “country”ians, political, controlling APNIC etc is saddening and unconstructive. Let’s discuss like serious professionals and responsible people and discuss
on the pros and cons of the existing system and the proposed system. As far as inputs like inefficiency is concern, these are to be taken as feedbacks by EC. Unless we have a mind to accept and invite feedbacks, we will never be innovative. Even if these are considered offensive, let EC defend/explain
these with inputs on their actions and steps that are not understood. Why would we members defend, henceforth offend each others. Does anyone said, the members who are supporting the current system are politically inclined to APNIC or EC? No, then why would
the election reform proposal be termed as political. As far as transparency is concern, every corporate falls under the rules of law. As per the books of law on corporate affairs, most countries expect everything to be transparent to the stake holders except operational strategies, matters
like Intellectual property and patents. A publicly listed company has even restrictions on salaries of top management, based on set governed rules. That means remunerations of employees are to be known to stakeholders. In such circumstances, a publicly funded
company (APNIC), with employer being the member, except member accepted matters everything shall be transparent. More an public organisation becoming transparent, more the community gains trust. Now regarding, comparing the finance with RIPE or ARIN, is because of lack of understanding on the diversity in the geo-political and economic condition of the APAC region. Whether it’s ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC, AFRNIC, non has such a vast
diversity in terms of culture, economy, language, standard of living etc within a single RIR., For instance AFRINIC has mostly similar kind of countries. We shall not avoid looking for innovations, by stating that others are also same. That’s not the way Internet
innovators work. People look to make differences. Let APNIC be the LEADER and be innovative and tell the world that there are astonishing ground-breaking approaches to handle various issues of the wonderfully diversified world.
Now there is a proposal for a “CHANGE” – Election reform. Obviously, any change there will be a resistance. Change management is a Science. But let’s make resistance with scientific inputs on the advantages on the current system rather
than offending the proposed system emotionally. There shall be inputs on the drawbacks of the proposed. There is no political approach, rather a scientific approach for a solution to the problems. If there are alternative solution, propose that too. Last, as per human psychology studies & also in management theories it is stated that any CHANGE is resisted due to 5 following reasons.
1.
Culturally it is not acceptable – for example introducing beef for the commonwealth games players in Delhi is not acceptable to many in the society.
2.
Visible threats - Insecurity
3.
Unpredictability in the change, hence forth Uncertainty – insecurity.
4.
Favouritism or dislikes - Subjective
5.
The old is superior than new changes. – Quantifiable. The inputs on EC shall be taken as feedbacks of some stakeholders, and let those be addressed by EC. If we are convinced on the efforts that are overlooked, we shall publicly appreciate and as well as be regretful. Is there any effort
to reduce the cost of resources by realigning the operational costs? I request the members to resist the change (Election reform) by choosing any one of the scientific approach stated above and express their views. Item no 4 is not worth to be considered. Note: Sorry for a long email, but I found the discussion is getting diverted into things like nationalism and political’ism (Is there any such English word?J) and it’s important to bring it
hard back to track. Thank you for reading such a long mail.:-) Regards Desi Valli 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.
|