On 29-Jul-10, at 09:24 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
You're suggesting all the governments in the region have a committee to advise APNIC? Do you expect anything to happen?
MMC
On 29/07/2010, at 12:33 PM, Rajesh Chharia wrote:
Dear MM,
GAC stand for Government Advisory Committee. In Internet all stake holders that includes Government are important for its success. The Eco System in ICANN is also on the same line. To be NIR its mandatory to endorse the application from sovereign. In brief why not we have them as a committee. It will also help us in our demand for giving equal representation to all economies in Apnic.
Vested Interest..I had observed few members deviating the healthy debates/discussion to either racial or showing solidarity to individuals with an intent to please people. Te debate on reforms is purely and purely in the interest of Apnic. I don't want any ambiguity either in MoA or rules and regulation. If the foundation is not correct how one can expect the right results. I suggest check few ID's who diverted the discussions/debate to such said concerns.
I welcome all to debate and convince Apnic to ponder on the following area of concerns:
Independent Election Panel.
Abolish proportionate Voting.
Time lines for EC's
GAC should be incorporated & Representation of all Economies.
Reform of MoA.
Regards
Rajesh
On 28-Jul-10, at 16:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Rajesh,
Can you clarify what you mean by "vest interested"? Also, what do you mean by "GAC"?
MMC
On 28/07/2010, at 5:35 PM, Rajesh Chharia wrote:
Dear Jonny,
Thanks for clarifying your view points. I also feel that there is change/amendment required in MoA. The community with 52 economies would keep getting interfered by vested interest, I promise to make them visible.
My 5th proposal is "Reform of MoA" in addition to following 4 reforms proposed earlier:
1. Independent Election Panel.
2. Abolish proportionate Voting.
3. Time lines for EC's
4. GAC should be incorporated & Representation of all Economies.
Regards
Rajesh
PS: I hope you are not referring about Vote Management you discuss with us in last APNIC 29.
On 28-Jul-10, at 13:10 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
Rajesh,
On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Rajesh Chharia wrote:
Overlooking any personal remark, let me respond to Johny’s explanation on behalf of Paul.
Let me be clear here. My response was not "on behalf of Paul".
Any emails here are me, speaking as me, and on no-one's behalf other than my own. Please do not suggest otherwise. I merely pointed towards the clause in the current by-laws which pertains to elections at member meetings in a polite and non-derogatory manner.
If the APNIC bylaws are insufficient then that is a failing not of the DG, the EC, or the Secretariat, but a failing of the membership as a whole.
There are several points which have come out on this list in the past few months which I in fact have believed in for some time. Unfortunately the conduct displayed by some parties at APNIC29 and on this list are leading me towards unsubscribing from apnic-talk and taking an ambivalent approach to any proposed changes.
How about we work on effecting positive change here and not creating trouble?