Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
On 26/07/2010, at 6:58 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
>
> - James, Terry's point about it taking a whole term to get familiar with APNIC EC processes - doesn't this render you only semi-useful for the first term?
yes, at the start semi useful is probably an accurate way to describe it. Again the system isn't perfect.
> If so, how do you go about convincing people you are worth a second term? "I now know what to do everyone! So elect me again" ? Or, does this bring up a point... should first time EC members be given an extra year to familiarise themselves with the processes? I do agree with James that there is very significant effort to learn all this, but sure it is all wasted if you don't get elected a second term.
I think what this discussion has highlighted is that experience is valuable in both the EC and DG roles.
Another thing that has become clear [Thanks to Terry] is that there isn't currently a manual, or some type of training day/program that an incoming EC member can (or must) have. I don't think this will be hard to fix and will discuss with the EC Chair about the possibility for implementing and documenting a manual and training program for the role, this is a great idea.
> Also, perhaps, and this is only a suggestion, that for ex-EC members, or ex-DG's who are willing, perhaps there could be a new 'Life EC Member' with non-voting rights to be a part of the EC an mentor the serving EC members. Yes, a scary suggestion, am sure it would have many issues... but it is only an idea.
Hey not a bad idea but given you don't pay EC members to serve for their term, now you'd now like them to serve for life, might not be too popular an idea :-) (joke)
>
> - APNIC is a member organisation. We elect people who we trust to get them to appoint the DG and run the high level issues. But if the EC is going to tell us to butt out, then you might find the membership might have something to say about that. If the EC decides it really is none of the members business on how it runs APNIC then I think the EC with that attitude might be creating its own expiration date.
The EC *does* ask members how to run APNIC, we just ask *ALL* members not just a few.
Have a look at the member survey, it has detailed questions on how APNIC is performing, how it should allocate its resources and what level of satisfaction there is with the costs and services offered. This is done in a structured way that encompasses as many members views as possible and across as many economies as possible.
Lets look at some of the question ....
"
A1-1. The overall services provided by APNIC are satisfactory ?
A1-2. The value members get from APNIC justifies the cost ?
A1-10. APNIC face-to-face training is readily available in my region ?
A1-19. The current policy development process provides me with the tools to participate in the process ?
A1-21 APNIC should be involved with activities and events of operator groups, ISP associations,
government and educational institutions in the region ?
A1-24. APNIC should have higher level representation to liaise with governments and industry across the region?
Here is some of the summary info from the survey ...
Members recorded the highest percentage for question B3-1 indicating future resource allocation to IPv6 promotion, education and / or training as a priority.
Stakeholders also recorded the highest percentage (17%) in the Communications questions CA2-2 indicating future resource allocation to increase the support of the community’s efforts to adopt IPv6 is a priority.
Members recorded the highest percentage (21%) in the Technical question TA2-1 indicating future resource allocation to research and development activities are seen as a priority.
Members recorded 18% in the Services questions SA2-1, SA2-4, SA2-6. This indicated future resource allocation to: expand training activities in scope, geographical coverage and online options; support network engineering education in the Asia-Pacific region; support of IPv6 deployment as priorities.
"
I think the confusion is that the EC doesn't ask a limited subset of members "how much should we spend on travel", rather we ask all members what services , involvement and value they want from APNIC and we then ask that a budget is prepared to meet the requests of the general membership. It's not that we aren't asking the question, we are asking the question in a different manor and to a wider audience.
> Members are the most critical part of APNIC in my opinion... yes it is complicated to address all their needs in the way they would like them addressed, but I think that an honest effort should be made to do so. This should be in the form of member input, reporting to the members at the events. If the EC/DG/Staff don't make this effort, you could have a very messy member meeting if a LOT of people turn up and demand to be heard.
Skeeve, there is an honest effort being made to address the needs of members (see above). There are many direct results from the survey that I'm sure you have witnessed. So my comment still stands, having a very limited number of active members analyse each of the Costs Centres at each meeting simply isn't the correct process for member input, nor is it workable or fair to the other 2,295 members.
You also suggest there should be more reporting to members, I think there is a huge amount of reporting that happens at each APNIC meeting, it is the best part of a day of reports, from the Treasurer's report, EC's report, DG's reports, then each Senior/Area manager gives a report, there really is quite a lot of reporting at the meeting
Overall this type of discussion is really useful, I think it has highlighted that the way the EC, DG and APNIC operate isn't entirely understood, so it's a great thing we are talking about it and we are getting some positives to make the process better.
Given that, I wouldn't mind asking if there is interest in a "meet the EC event" at each APNIC event, possibly during a coffee break in a spare room. Members who would like to either, meet the EC, ask questions or just provide general feedback could come to that room for a chat with the EC members, would that be useful ?
> ...Skeeve
--
James