Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
On 18/07/2010, at 9:08 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> MMC,
>
> This debate does sound like it is turning into a yelling match, but proportional representation is an important issue for people in many nations and cultures.... some that have had to fight for it a lot harder than we've had to in Australia.
>
Currently the voting system means that, roughly, votes represent the number of end users (ie. think about it - larger numbers of IPs represent larger end user bases).
One APNIC member, one vote gives you a very different representation base: http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19407/2009-APNIC-Annual-Report.pdf (page 3)
Which is fairer? Which is actual proportional representation? Should Australians get 28% of the APNIC vote? How's that fair to Japan with 3% of the members due to an NIR?
It's all a compromise, but I don't see that changing it from the current system is any fairer.
> I personally think the election process is a bit of a joke - it doesn't need to be so complicated. The whole preference swapping thing is just overcomplicated and smells of backroom deals.
Sounds like any election.
>
> I DO very much support online voting and making it more simple. I also think the process needs to be more transparent. Voting blocks are hurting APNIC and making it vulnerable to the agendas of a few groups.
It's not clear how you intend to change this by switching to online voting. APNIC elections appear to be no more or less complex than any other large member organisation I've been involved in. The many nations side of things make it complex as language and culture gets a bit in the way.
> An overhaul of the EC process - limits on terms I believe is important. Perhaps expanding the number of positions or types of positions, i.e. Subcontinent, Pacific and other regional reps whose job it is to represent the interests of those regions? Just an idea... don't attack yet.
Does that actually give a better stronger APNIC? Gerrymandering doesn't appear to do so.
>
> There are some issues that need to be dealt with here.... and some that won't go away easily without others going away first.
>
> The 5 year term for DG... I think perhaps 7... whatever the limit is... there should be one.
Why? If the elected EC thinks the DG is doing a good job, why should they be turfed out?
>
> I think travel should be open and discusses at meetings, or in some forum... I am a big hater of wastage and while there is some here, I doubt it is on purpose - but it still needs to be looked at and justified. I don't think it is sour grapes here... this is a member based organisation and APNIC needs to be accountable to the membership.
Travel, for an organisation that serves a very large part of the world is going to be high. As per my previous posts the %ages APNIC spends on various things is very much inline with other RIRs. So I doubt it's going to be something that really has a big effect.
It's easy to look at a big number and say "it's too much". But I suspect if you look at the number of trips involved it'd make sense.
Certainly if people want more EC members and regional reps then this figure ain't going to go down.
>
> Membership fees are of less an issue to me than the Initial start-up fees of $3000+. I've been told APNIC were reviewing this fee yet I've seen nothing happen yet since I was told close to a year ago it was being looked at. Membership fees themselves I think are fair and equitable.
Have you proposed a policy on it? Isn't so much of this actually being raised here in the wrong place? I'm not opposed to the membership startup fee as a higher bar to reduce the number of IPv4 allocations. Especially if combined with 1 member, 1 vote, it seems a way of making it easier to sign people up for voting needs.