Rajesh, I did not make ANY personal remark about you... I do not know
you personally and object to you suggesting I did. Rajesh, you seem to be looking to find holes where there seems
to be none. -
EC Elections happen at annual member meetings. -
The EC Chair is the chair of the meeting – and it
prescribes choosing an alternate Chair should the EC Chair not be available –
the DG, then other procedures as you’ve mentioned below. -
At any meeting, the EC shall decide how things are done -
There seems to be no particular process prescribed, which I take
to mean that the Chair of the EC (or acting Chair of the meeting) can
choose how the Election procedure occurs -
It isn’t that it “doesn’t detail” a
procedure. I think it does - “counting of votes” could easily
prescribe how they obtain those votes as well as the tabulation process. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about relating to personal
remarks or racial remarks. I don’t particularly find your
accusations to be very community friendly and you seem to be threatening
hostilities where none is needed. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? From: Rajesh Chharia [mailto:rc at cjnet4u dot com] Dear Skeeve, Overlooking any personal
remark, let me respond to Johny’s explanation on behalf of Paul. As answered by
Johny “EC has the right to count vote under "Part
IV – Members-Chairman of Meetings-13. At any meeting of the
Members the Executive Council shall be responsible for the counting of votes in
such manner as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and may for this
purpose appoint 2 or more persons to serve as tellers." After going through his
recommendation/explanation, I actually did not reach out to any
conclusion & I am sure that even community must be realizing the gap
in his attempt/clarification. It is a reflection
on knowledge that half knowledge is no knowledge or half knowledge
is dangerous - as the clause Johny has referred
to community it only explains about whenever a meeting
takes place, “the Chair of the Executive Council shall preside
as chairman of the meeting & if the Chair of the Executive Council is
not present at the meeting, then if the Director General is present, the
Director General shall preside as chairman of the meeting, otherwise the
Members present shall choose someone of their number to be the
chairman. If the Members are unable to choose a chairman for any
reason, then the person representing the greatest number of votes
present in person or by prescribed form of proxy at the meeting shall
preside as chairman failing which the oldest individual Member (in terms of
age) or representative of a Member present shall take the chair. The
chairman may, with the consent of the meeting, adjourn any meeting from time to
time, and from place to place, but no business shall be transacted at any
adjourned meeting other than the business left unfinished at the meeting from
which the adjournment took place. At any meeting of the
Members the Executive Council shall be responsible for the counting of votes in
such manner as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and may for this
purpose appoint 2 or more persons to serve as tellers.” That the rights of counting
votes you are talking about, relates to the issues raised for formation of
chair representing the meeting. It has nothing to do with Election
procedure of EC. But I must thank him as his
response has opened another concern over APNIC’s work. I would share the
same soon. I humbly request all that we
should not turn a good debate to either personal /loose remark or racial. We
are already probing 2 IP' addresses who had done that attempt. It
would be shared shortly with community either on mail or in person during Apnic
30. Regards Rajesh On 28-Jul-10, at 04:07 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
Hey Rajesh, Why does Paul need to respond? The By Laws are CLEAR as
Jonny posted below. “At any meeting of the Members the Executive
Council shall be responsible for the counting of votes in such manner as
it considers appropriate...” Paul isn’t your dancing bear guys... He has responded, and
then Jonny pointed it out. The EC is responsible... it is as clear a that. ...Skeeve -- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego -- NOC, NOC, who's there? From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Rajesh Chharia Dear Paul, Do I assume that Johny Matin's
response is your response also ? Desi has been following up on the
same before the weekend as well as later. However, the issue is not over the
delay - Johny's response/attempt is something which either needs to be
clarified or confirmed by you. It would help me to respond/check such
misdirection going on around Apnic Talk. Desi had expressed his inability
to see the details regarding - "who is responsible to conduct election -
EC, or DG or secretariat ? That's not mentioned in by-laws." Hope the
community will get the response from you this time. Regards Rajesh On 27-Jul-10, at 10:42 AM, Jonny
Martin wrote:
Rajesh, On your response regarding APNIC
Election process bylaws, Desi has asked for clarification twice "that who
is responsible for Election, EC or DG or Secretariat in the advise link/ bylaws
document.
|