Following are the responses.
In the current by-laws, there is no clear provision which provides who conduct the election.
Ans: By-law needs to be changed, an electoral body that is independent of operations needs to be constituted every time when there is an election.
Which benefit do you think Secretariat enjoys?
They may not be enjoying any benefit, but till the new ECs are swearing in, the current ECs who are also nominating themselves, are bosses. Favouritism is possible. This may not happen, but there is a possibility. Hence, shouldn’t be
Scrutinizers should be part of electoral body, if a candidate still tries to access scrutinizers, he/she must be doing it with the electoral body as a whole that is almost impossible and not with a scrutinizer.
Good, that the limited number of years per EC is a valid discussion.
Yes, I recommend removing paper ballot and introduce ONLY online. if many didn’t vote, so be it. Count only those who voted.
Mr. Kuo Wei Wu, was a co-complainant, hence obviously he shouldn’t have been the chair for the motion. Options of Mr. James Spenceley and Mr. Hyun-Joon Kwon were still open. The reply doesn’t answer one important question. Does the constituency
give any power to ONLY one EC to take the shot of suspending the counting process. If the constituency doesn’t describe about such unusual events, isn’t it appropriate that the consultative and inclusive approach of other ECs should have been practised instead
of an undemocratic unanimous decision of suspending a process. I agree that the complaint of a candidate should be addressed immediately, but through an inclusive process that paves a definition for future references in such unusual incidents.
I do not disagree that the final call was taken in a democratic manner. But what was the motion? Do we continue the suspension of the counting process, or do we let the counting continue. Thus, the motion was
to get acceptance over an act that was performed without any consensus from any sector, including other EC members. That was unanimous. Do we call that as democratic decision?.
Now, what transparency will be displayed by the current ECs to the community on such incident, which is definitely not healthy for the system. No one person is a boss of the organisation, it’s the community
and its representatives in total. Will the next EC meeting will at least condemn such an act and make it part of the code of conduct and power of ECs, so that no EC in the future will take any unanimous decision?
Please note that there is no personal differences with any ECs, but these references are been highlighted so that the rule-book is drafted appropriately to avoid any future conflicts, or conflicts of interests.
SUBMITION: PLEASE ANNOUNCE THE VOTE COUNTS OF LOST CANDIDATES.
All democratic setups that I know doesn’t practise this model. Right To Information, is an ACT in most of the democratic setups. Through this I submit to the EC and the respective authorities who carry such information to make these information
available, and transparency be demonstrated.
On the lighter side: The spell checker corrects APNIC as PANICJ.
From: MAEMURA Akinori [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 5:15 PM
To: Desi Valli; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
Here's several questions and comments of mine on to several
points which you raised.
Colleagues on apnic-talk,
especially those present at AMM,
Here I try my best to describe how I perceive on those point.
Your input, positive or negative, are appreciated.
I am sorry to made it lengthy.
In message <[email protected]xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Re: [apnic-talk] Elections"
"Desi Valli <[email protected]>" wrote:
| Hi David,
| I can't call this as an evidence but could be considered as per the
| law of interpretation.
| We all went through what happened on the last day, during vote count.
| As a first timer in APNIC conferences, following are some of the
| observations that make me to interpret that the intentions of ECs are
| not neutral, always.
Do you mean;
that of EC is possibly un-neutral,
or thet of EC is never neutral ?
| 1. Elections are conducted by ECs instead of an Election commission
| or someone who is not part of current responsibilities.
To have an independent election committee is valid as a
candidate of revision of election process.
In the current by-laws, there is no clear provision which
provides who conduct the election. In this case, if Membership
could not conduct it, it would belongs the EC's responsibility.
However, the EC is just handling it as the by-laws provides,
and in practice, everything is handled to Secretariat.
Morever, the members of the EC have been very careful not to
be exposed in Conflict of Interest(CoI) situation. Any decision
regarding the conduct of the election was done except the
candidates for it.
| 2. Voting is again managed by the secretariat not by a any neutral body.
I have no idea how Secretariat can be not neutral.
For me if Secretariat can be not neutral, any election
committee can be not neutral.
Which benefit do you think Secretariat enjoys?
| 3. The scrutinizers are not selected before the start of election, but
| only at the time of counting.
I think it better to select them just before counting than
to select them before the election starts. If the scrutineers
were known, a candidate might be able to access them, or
in other words, any conversation between a candidate and
a scrutineers might be suspected.
| 4. There is NO maximum number of years defined to be an EC, it looked
| as if the Asian Internet community has a huge shortage of eminent
| and qualified people.
I am personally proud to be elected several times.
Having a maximum number of re-election is actually one of
practices adopted in such public offices. valid for the
| 5. THE organisation that is responsible to make Internet work, keeps
| a LOOPHOLE open in the voting process in the name of proxy voting,
| that helps the contestants to bargain between, and manipulate the
| * (I'm from India which is the largest democratic in the world, with
| more than 750 million eligible voters, conducts the entire election
| process through electronic voting systems, as the people believe
| that the ballet system has loopholes for contestants to manipulate
| the outcome - India is still a developing country)
So you are suggesting to eliminate paper valot and full
employment of electronic voting, right?
| On the specific incident:
For the following points I will not present my thoughts by
item, but in general, I perceived as;
+ Che-Hoo Cheng complained as a candidate, requested a fix
+ MA Yan and myself refrained from handling anything
since we were candidates
+ Kuo Wei Wu worked as the tentative chair of *the EC
without candidates*, I asked him for it as he is the
+ James Spenceley and Hyun-Joon Kwon worked for a fix
as *the EC without candidates*.
And I believe this was the best the EC could handle the issue.
Since I possibly hold a bias of a candidate, I would love to
have the perspectives from the other people on the floor.
They are pretty much appreciated.
| 6. One of the EC member SUSPENDS the counting process, without HEARING
| both the sides, or CONSULTING other EC members.
| 7. Does the constitution allows "ONLY ONE" EC to suspend the counting
| process, without even discussing the case with the other EC members?
| (I couldn't find any such document online, if so please send me the
| 8. The EC who is also a complainant is been appointed as the chair of
| the "enquiry commission" by another current EC who was the chair at
| that juncture, in the excuse of he being the contestant. Isn't that
| obvious that there SHOULD be only neutral person as chair in such
| an event.
| 9. Even after I objecting the decision of the complainant being the
| chair of the commission, there were no moral responsibility visible,
| the chair didn't step-down or ask for a consensus among the members
| to continue as the chair.
| The explanation of the incident was given to other EC members, only
| after the suspension of counting processes was executed. Good that
| James was matured enough to demand for an explanation before going
| for a consensus on dismissing the counting processes. Otherwise it
| would have been a suo-motto decision of ONE of the ECs, not a democratic
| decision. How could an EC who is believed and trusted to be qualified
| and experienced to run an organisation like APNIC, take such a hasty
| decision? This is good enough to be interpreted/considered as an
| EVIDENCE that the undemocratic decision of suspending the counting
| process without consulting the other EC members, is definitely not
| in the interests of APNIC.
I believe suspension was the only way to wait for a decision.
The entire EC with Secretariat actually tried our best as
democratic as possible in such an unusual situation.
| PS: if I had been an EC, I would have demanded resignation from such
| ECs who displays a total immaturity and incompetency in handling such
| serious issues and taking hasty decisions. The unilateral & dictatorial
| decision of suspending the counting processes is unconstitutional and
I do believe the handling for the issue was democratic
enough, if not perfect, since the Membership had a chance
to oppose any fix or to support it.
However, again, my view might consist of a bias of a successful
candidate. Therefore I would like to seak the input for those
who were in the AMM.
Any of your inputs would be highly appreciated, Membership.
MAEMURA Akinori, who was
Chair of the Executive Council until the election,
and a successful candidate for the election as well
| Desi Valli