Dear
Review Panel members, I
welcome the detailed report that carries both the findings as well as the
recommendations. I thank you all for clearing my role from the mist and
concluding that the participation of myself in the scrutinizers’
committee is as per the “current norms” & if we have to be
specific about a process, it shud be drawn as advised. It
is also good that you have recommended to enhance the policies and procedures
of EC election. Your recommendation to appoint an EC chair, is nothing but a
recommendation of forming an independent panel to execute the election process,
and is an appreciable recommendation. While
I appreciate the factual report, some unknown facts have come out as a real
shocker-Johny Martin, who went and complained, was the one who came & told
me during lunch that 2 ECs were creating issues on my being a scrutinizer.
It was the same individual who informed us that Vote management/alignment has
taken place among a few contestants. I
am glad that my fellow scrutinizers have confirmed that I simply wanted to be an
observer as that was also conveyed to Paul during my discussions over the
concerns regarding the “timeline-issue” being expressed by a section
of the community. My only and only intent, as discussed with him, was to
heal the adverse feelings over the communication on the said issue. I
wud have, however, appreciated further had I been called & enquired by any
of the members of the review committee as the reports carry statements of mine
which are incomplete. Isn’t that a violation on an individual’s
right to advocate his versions? I sincerely request the panel to make
amendments to the finding doc after hearing my side of the statements. Even
though the report doesn’t state any violation on my part as per the
process(frankly, there is no process and I hope that the proposals made by community
regarding election reforms would now be taken more seriously) it is
important that it should carry findings only after vetting all information
thoroughly. The
need of the hour is to work upon the MOA also as many of the processes proposed
by you contradict the same. Regards
and best wishes, Naresh Ajwani -----Original Message----- Dear Colleagues, On behalf of the APNIC Executive Council, I would like to
draw your attention to the recently published report of the EC
Election Review Panel. The APNIC Executive Council commissioned an independent
Election Review Panel in June 2010 to prepare a factual report of the
events of the March 2010 EC election. The Panel's brief was to consider the following specific
questions: 1. Were the election procedures followed? 2. Was the integrity of the election impaired in
any manner? If so, how? 3. To provide recommendations as to how the
conduct of the EC election process could be
improved, as appropriate. The Election Review Panel's report has been recently
received by the EC. The Panel's report is now published in the EC's section
of the APNIC web site: http://www.apnic.net/ec Geoff Huston Executive Secretary to the APNIC EC _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
|