[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 36

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 36
From: Rajesh Chharia
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 22:18:27 +0530
I agree Naresh.
Different strokes for different folks is not a professional and transparent way to lead the bodies responsible for over 50 countries.
The meaning of “conflict of interest” shall not change depending upon the situations. Worldwide it is acceptable to have observers for elections, what are we trying to hide
I think it is collusion of few to block new blood and thoughts-it is getting further exposed by such resistance. One shall not divert and debate the issues ahead and not the past. The few members insistant to know the immediate concerns are limiting the real discussions.
We shall debate the real issues and shall not shy away from them anymore.

Rajesh Chharia
+9198110 38188

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:33:35 +0530
From: "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: "'MAEMURA Akinori'" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Maemura San,

So why didn't we leave the "timeline issue for the proxy registeration" also on
independent friends from other RIR? I propose to elaborate the issue further but
we can't have norms/conflict of interest at our coneveniences and that's why I
have proposed the Electoral College as first area of concern. Whats wrong with
this proposal; The electoral college can have friends from other RIR but they
shall not be accountable to the ECs.

Other two propsoed areas of discussion have the similar reasoning and origin but
I am optimist and want to discuss the reforms only.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
Sent: 09 March 2010 20:18
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Dear Brajesh C Jain,

In message <[email protected]>
  "RE: [apnic-talk] Elections"
  "Brajesh Jain <[email protected]>" wrote:

| Dear Maemura San,
| A senior  EC person gave a logic , while you were in the chair, that a
| person should not be present in counting as ballot identity would be known.
I've checked the scribe but still have no idea who and what
part you mentioned.  Whom do you mean by "A senior EC person"?

| Ballot papers have no name, so how come the identity would be known.
| Hope you would give your response.

No answer to the question since I clearly had a conflict of
interest as a candidate on anything regarding the election
on Friday.  It is not the question when the motion was made.
That why I asked Kuo Wei Wu for being tentative chair since
he is the only officeholder not expiring the term.

For me personally, I have no idea why we cannot leave the
vote-counting far independent friends like colleagues from
other RIRs.  Anyway, such a procedure should be reinforced
not to leave any ambigious interpretation.

[email protected] rather personally this time

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100309/ffc2453e/attachment.html


apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 36

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 36, Rajesh Chharia <=