Rajesh, Regarding your number 1 point. I believe that the conduct of the elections has been just
fine. I have no problem that the EC has delegated the operational
responsibility of the elections to the Secretariat. I believe this is VERY important as it integrates with the
operations of APNIC, for example: - Updating website of all details, including candidates bios and
such - The process of nominations and notifications - Drafting and sending election notices to the members - The processing the proxies (as defined under bylaws) - Publishing the details of each election - Communicating with candidates - Preparing and distributing ballot papers - Preparing and presenting election procedures - Programming, hosting and operating the online voting system Several of the above which actually have a cost attached to
them. Of course the by-laws don’t get down to the exact
details... but my opinion is ‘so what’? APNIC has been
operating elections for a long time now, and from everything I’ve seen it
has operated them without major controversy – apart from KL. And in
my opinion (I was present), that while initially confusing, it was settled very
well by the people who stepped up. I also don’t think that this issue
will easily happen again. Do we need a manual on how the election should operate?
Umm.. ok.. if you want... but in my opinion the EC should just formally write a
paper called “Election Operations GUIDELINES” – basically the
way they have been conducting the elections for the last 10 odd years (or
more). Every election that has been held is archived online, with
transcripts and the process is well practiced. But, to re-enforce – the document should be ‘guidelines’...
not a set of by-laws, or legalistic document. I am not really understanding what you are trying to accomplish
by an ‘Independent Election Panel’. It is almost as if you
are suggesting that we can’t trust the EC to conduct its own elections –
which for the most part is managed by the Secretariat – and very competently
in my opinion. --- Point 2. I’m not a massive fan of proportionate voting. But
in the case of APNIC I’ve come to the conclusion that nothing else
works. I know in my heart that if I was say Telstra with a LOT of
resources at stake, and I was paying a large amount of money for the management
of those resources, then I would want more of a say. For your idea to work, I believe it would have to go in hand
with only one membership level, everyone paying the same, and anyone can have
whatever resources they like. This would be insane. Again, I don’t like proportionate voting – because countries
with billions of people like India, China and other massive countries with
large populations mostly have large internet companies needing a lot of
resources – and they can essentially influence the vote with their size. But again, they have more at stake, and it is hoped that super
large members would be responsible with their votes and do what is the best for
the overall community. And right now... I do see that as being the case. --- Point 3. There should be some limits I agree... but what those are, what
form they take should be up to the community to debate and settle on. I
am happy for reasonable periods, with a couple of terms. But any organisation
needs new blood and it is so easy for an incumbent member to get themselves
re-elected and essentially locking others out with the key changes being from
people who have better things to do. One idea I was thinking about was... should we expand the size
of the EC... or create a couple of special positions. ARIN for example
has a Advisory Board that most works with policy related issues... should we
have something like that who elect a person to be on the EC.... or maybe a
Regional Advisory Board – that looks at the needs, requirements, issues
of different countries, reports back to the AMM, and maybe has a rep on the EC
as well. This would open the EC up to fresh and formalised input. Just an idea? --- Point 4 Meh... kind of what I’ve suggested above... but really,
countries are free to become members if they like and have their own say.
Governments for the most part only just co-operate on a global level at the UN,
we don’t need an APNIC regional UN equivalent. --- Point 5 I’d need to see what reform you are proposing. --- Rajesh...
if there is anything I have learnt about this community is that change takes
time, and is influenced – not rushed. We have too many nations,
cultures, interests and history for things to happen too fast and the harder
you try to make things change the harder push back you will get and the less
serious people will take you. Pick
one or two things... be reasonable, get an interested group of people together and
put a proposal down in writing. Submit it at a meeting and then let it be
considered by the membership. If
you keep expanding your list of demands then no one is going to take you
seriously and you will be the boy who cried wolf... and eventually people will
just start to ignore you. I
think you are an articulate person with some ideas that certainly are worth
exploring.... just dont make people who are willing to listen to you at the
moment, turn away because you go overboard. ...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, I agree that "dancing of bear" was not a personal
remark for me but its not right to compare any body as a bear. :-) Conducting an election and counting of votes are 2 different
process of any democratic institution. Community is demanding an independent
body to conduct election and the same is missing in MoA also. There have been racial remarks in the debates and certainly
you have never done the same. Your all comments so far have been with knowledge
and substance. Views can vary but that does not mean any accusations. One
particular ID has been identified masquerading name indicating country's origin
had diverted the discussions as referred in my concerns. Last not the least I reiterate that your inputs/debates are
very meaningful on all the following important areas for making Apnic stronger
further and I hope the debate is limited to issues only and I hope after this
clarification the debate is limited to issues only:
Regards Rajesh On 29-Jul-10, at 05:29 AM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
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 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.
|