Dear
Kramvir, While
appreciating your emotions, would like to request you to follow decorum of
debate. APNIC is an excellent body with many good practices & leaders. Neither
NIR nor the proposed reforms are far. I
would always appreciate positive actions and frankly, I can see only positive parts
in the report. The
contention that I am Director NIXI is correct but it is voluntary work like I
am NRO NC for APNIC. The company I work for commercially is not APNIC member
and that was my stand. More than that, my offer to withdraw from the team in case
of an issue was rejected by the Secretary, APNIC. Request,
please don’t reject any report-nothing is permanent, perceptions can be
corrected and avoid emotions like black flag etc. Having
said that, I thank you for your support with a request to keep extending the
same forever J Regards, Naresh
Ajwani From: kramvir singh
[mailto:krmvrsngh61 at gmail dot com] Dear Naresh, Do not bow down before such autocratic approach and you
should not have welcomed this report. The community has been asking for NIR for
India and DG has lied to the community in APNIC KL meet, that India has been
given NIR. With such fundamentals missing why you have to appreciate
the report? You have no right to view that report as acceptance of Election
reforms. This is nowhere near to accepting of independent election body to
conduct election. We reject this report and show black flag to all those who
are responsible for it. 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----- 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
|