Dear Karamveer,
I know Naresh personally and he advocates strongly for level playing field & equality.
I don’t think the review panelist in their own country realizes that the elections are conducted by independent election bodies/commissions & observers from the candidate side is not anything unethical-it’s must in any democratic set-up but knowing Naresh, his concern must have been to ensure that the entire community remains united. I also heard him praising the process of counting.
The way factual report has come , it further proves Naresh’s attempt to bring transparency to the community. He was upfront & candid about his thought. His fault is his intentions/lead to professionalize the APNIC elections for future & that too by taking initiatives at APNIC talk platform.
Rgds
PG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kramvir singh
[mailto:krmvrsngh61 at gmail dot com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 6:34 PM
To: Naresh
Cc: Geoff Huston; APNIC Talk
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Announcement: EC Election Review Panel
Report
Dear Naresh,
If I am not mistaken you are the one who started NIR issue for India. I have also been following election reforms by you, where you wanted due representation to all economies in Asia Pacific.
It is prudent to have a community with every country representation than only a few countries playing the role.
I have also observed that a few countries are getting together and giving a name Asia Pacific to the body. It is unfair for our countries.
Good leaders would always take up a stand in a similar manner to protect the true meaning of democracy.
Few people with vested interested would keep pushing people like you. Never feel bad for them. they are also known for double crossing. Keep up your pace for reforms professionals with honest intention would always support you.
Regards
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Naresh <ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com> wrote:
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-----
From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 1:12 PM
To: APNIC Talk
Subject: [apnic-talk] Announcement: EC Election Review Panel Report
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
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk