[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16
From: Rajesh Chharia
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:10:04 +0530
FROM: BRAJESH JAIN, Chair ISOC Delhi Chapter

Dear friends,

I happened to be present while candidates for APNIC EC were giving their
resume during the poll process. I heard 10 years/12 years continuity.

Country/region can not be ignored. So percentage working out by Terry does
not give correct presentation.

Yes I agree that that there is election process and would call for specific
process to change.

I want to mention why the question is arising. The APNIC EC leadership needs
to make sure that they transparently are taking view from from
countries/regions  not having representation in APNIC EC. I am very sad and
disheartened that such view taking is not at all visible. I spent 5 days at
KL meetings. Not even one EC person thought it fit to spend few minutes to
try to get some viewpont of ISOC in delhi. On the contrary I felt ( may be
wrongly) complete neglect and high arrogance on the part of EC leadership. I
, of course, would be happy to be corrected if EC leadership gives its view
otherwise.

During election process, one of the APNIC senior EC person severely
questioned judgement of APNIC Executive Secretary in following rules/process
( Who undountedly is one of the very learned persons on Internet scene).
Same senior  EC person also questioned that a person , otherwise eligible to
be present during counting process, should not be present in counting as
ballot identity would be known. Ballot papers have no name, so how come the
identity would be known. This clearly pointed that this senior EC person was
trying to protect/hide some specific pattern of voting which would not allow
any one other that the collaborating candidates to win.

If we believe Internet as controlled by open process and transparent method,
I urge the community to ask for results of ballot and pattern of voting for
all candidates. APNIC staff is competent to put in garphic or other form for
all to clearly see.I appeal to APNIC EC to respond and demonstrate that they
are true leaders and the APNIC EC does represent all regions. If they hide
behind coterie of rules, my impression ( though may be wrong ) would get
firmed in the unfair representation.

If so, ITU would probably be better bet where all regions have fair
representation.

May I request those community persons who know better than me ( I have only
attended two APNIC meets) and believe in openness and transparency would
respond.

BrajeshC Jain
Chair
ISOC Delhi Chapter


On 09-Mar-10, at 12:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
[email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re:  Elections (Matthew Moyle-Croft)
  2. Re:  Elections (Aftab Siddiqui)
  3. Re:  Elections (Naresh Ajwani)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:57:09 +1030
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: Aadit Shrestha <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:

Dear all,
How about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who have never had a member elected and cannot do so in the foreseeable future with the same regulations.

There's ~56 countries which are in the APNIC RIR "zone".  I count 9 (Japan, Australia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) that have had members from their countries elected to the board.


The seat could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus.

One thing missing from the table of WHO got elected is who has run for election.   Of the nations you mention above have any of them attempted to gain a position on the EC and been unable?  If they were elected to the EC through a change of policy what would you assert the difference would be as far as APNIC is run and resources allocated?   Especially as my understanding that the policies behind resource allocation etc are set by members voting by show of hands at the meetings not by the EC in private.

There seems to be a number of people pushing the idea that somehow some nations are favoured over others at APNIC and that somehow the nations with smaller voting rights are "missing out".   Is this really the case?

Is it a language issue or a cultural issue?   Is the issue that some people assume it's harder for them than others or that it's harder because they don't do it that often?   The company I work for does quite a bit of work to do our allocations  especially now we have to justify some historic space.

Is the actual issue education and maybe some help/mentoring from others?  eg.  maybe some exchange of ideas between members in different parts of the region might actually help those who don't interact with APNIC as often for allocation get some help from those who do or have less cultural/language issues?

Regards,
Matthew
--
Matthew Moyle-Croft
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
Internode /Agile
Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>    Web: http://www.on.net<http://www.on.net/>
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100309/f85a2fa1/attachment.html

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:34:56 +0500
From: Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hello Mathew,
In my opinion the problem is not with very "Small Voting Rights" but the
problem is how many members from these economies actually cast their vote.
Can any one from APNIC share these stats?

Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui


On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
<[email protected]>wrote:


On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:

Dear all,
How about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights,
and who have never had a member elected and cannot do so in
the foreseeable future with the same regulations.


There's ~56 countries which are in the APNIC RIR "zone".  I count 9 (Japan,
Australia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) that
have had members from their countries elected to the board.


The seat could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus.


One thing missing from the table of WHO got elected is who has run for
election.   Of the nations you mention above have any of them attempted to
gain a position on the EC and been unable?  If they were elected to the EC
through a change of policy what would you assert the difference would be as
far as APNIC is run and resources allocated?   Especially as my
understanding that the policies behind resource allocation etc are set by
members voting by show of hands at the meetings not by the EC in private.

There seems to be a number of people pushing the idea that somehow some
nations are favoured over others at APNIC and that somehow the nations with
smaller voting rights are "missing out".   Is this really the case?

Is it a language issue or a cultural issue?   Is the issue that some people
assume it's harder for them than others or that it's harder because they
don't do it that often?   The company I work for does quite a bit of work to
do our allocations  especially now we have to justify some historic space.

Is the actual issue education and maybe some help/mentoring from others?
eg.  maybe some exchange of ideas between members in different parts of the
region might actually help those who don't interact with APNIC as often for
allocation get some help from those who do or have less cultural/language
issues?

Regards,
Matthew
--
Matthew Moyle-Croft
Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
Internode /Agile
Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [email protected]    Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909


_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100309/667169dd/attachment.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:40:11 +0530
From: "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: "'Aadit Shrestha'" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I support with delight :-)

Regards,

Naresh Ajwani

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aadit Shrestha
Sent: 09 March 2010 10:03
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Dear all,
How about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who
have never had a member elected and cannot do so in the foreseeable future with
the same regulations.

The seat could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus.

Just a thought.
Aadit



 _____  

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:40:09 +0530
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
Dear Maemura San,

Hi,

Certainly, I wud clarify the _expression_ in due course of discussions and you are
right it's about the composition of EC because of voting pattern/stalk.

In my opinion, "Internet is the leveller" but the table and the process of
Elections are distinctively dividing the region- I may be wrong in assuming the
same but really dont know that how Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many such
countries can get the representation in current EC structure.

I also don't know that how can we check a situation like that as "Security
Council" if 4 EC members from 3 countries of the same belt i.e. "majority"
decides to block, say for example some country wants to have NIR.

Concerns are more on the election process but let other members from the Talk
Group also have a look at the table and roles and obligations of EC.


Year
EC1
EC2
EC4
EC5
EC3
EC6
EC7
EC8

1998
Toru Takahashi ,
Japan
Geoff Huston,
Australia
Xing Li,
China
Srisakdi Charmonman,
Thailand
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong


1999
Toru Takahashi ,
Japan
Oh Kwang Sok,
Korea
Xing Li,
China
Tommi Chen,
Malaysia
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Geoff Huston,
Australia


2000
Kazunori Konishi,
Japan
Oh Kwang Sok,
Korea
Xing Li,
China
Tommi Chen,
Malaysia
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Geoff Huston,
Australia


2001
MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan
Byung-Kyu Kim,
Korea
Xing Li,
China
Qian Hualin,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Geoff Huston,
Australia


2002
MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan
Byung-Kyu Kim,
Korea
Xing Li,
China
Qian Hualin,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Geoff Huston,
Australia


2003
MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan
Yong Wan Ju,
Korea
Qian Hualin,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Geoff Huston,
Australia


2004
MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan
Yong Wan Ju,
Korea
Qian Hualin,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Vinh Ngo,
Australia


2005
MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan
Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
Korea
Qian Hualin,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Vinh Ngo,
Australia


2006
MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan
Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
Korea
Qian Hualin,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Vinh Ngo,
Australia


2007
MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan
Kusumba Sridhar,
India
Wei Mao,
China
Vinh Ngo,
Australia
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Ming-Cheng Liang,
Taiwan
Paul Wilson,
Australia

2008
MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan
Kusumba Sridhar,
India
Wei Mao,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
Ming-Cheng Liang,
Taiwan
Paul Wilson,
Australia

2009
MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan
Hyun-Joon Kwon,
Korea
Jian Zhang,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
James Spenceley,
Australia
Paul Wilson,
Australia

2010
MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan
Hyun-Joon Kwon,
Korea
Jian Zhang,
China
Ma Yan,
China
Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong
Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan
James Spenceley,
Australia
Paul Wilson,
Australia


Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani

-----Original Message-----
From: MAEMURA Akinori [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 08:42
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Dear Naresh,

|| The table is obvious on many unspoken but visibly glaring aspects which,
coupled
|| with certain important excerpts of the by-laws reproduced below, will help in
|| understanding the areas of concern as well as the way forward for the esteemed
|| APNIC-TALK group:

Here I found a strong _expression_ "visibly glaring aspects"
and it seems to be of the line-up of members of the Executive
Council since its beginning.


What do you try to mean?  


I agree whatever concern can be a start of good discussion.
I really encourage apnic-talk for an active discussion.



A tiny point is that some of what you excerpted are not what
by-law provides, but shown in
http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/E
C-roles-and-obligations ,
which the EC must comply as well, though.


Regards,
MAEMURA Akinori, a current EC member



In message <[email protected]>
  "[apnic-talk] Elections"
  ""Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]>" wrote:

|
|
| Dear All,
|  
| On the basis of my association and experience during the last few years, I
| appreciate and respect the processes and bottom up approach being followed at
| APNIC and have been strongly advocating the same at various forums. In the same
| spirit, I am confident that the call made for election reforms, at the recently
| held meet at KL, would also be looked into with a positive and all inclusive
| manner.  
|  
| Before any reforms are undertaken, one needs to understand the past scenario
and
| the composition of EC (given below) which can be a good starting point:
|  
|
| Year
| EC1
| EC2
| EC4
| EC5
| EC3
| EC6
| EC7
| EC8
|
| 1998
| Toru Takahashi ,
| Japan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
| Xing Li,
| China
| Srisakdi Charmonman,
| Thailand
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
|                    
|
| 1999
| Toru Takahashi ,
| Japan
| Oh Kwang Sok,
| Korea
| Xing Li,
| China
| Tommi Chen,
| Malaysia
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2000
| Kazunori Konishi,
| Japan
| Oh Kwang Sok,
| Korea
| Xing Li,
| China
| Tommi Chen,
| Malaysia
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2001
| MAEMURA Akinori,
| Japan
| Byung-Kyu Kim,
|  Korea
| Xing Li,
| China
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2002
| MAEMURA Akinori,
| Japan
| Byung-Kyu Kim,
|  Korea
| Xing Li,
| China
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2003
| MAEMURA Akinori ,
| Japan
| Yong Wan Ju,
| Korea
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Geoff Huston,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2004
| MAEMURA Akinori ,
| Japan
| Yong Wan Ju,
| Korea
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Vinh Ngo,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2005
| MAEMURA Akinori ,
| Japan
| Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
| Korea
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Vinh Ngo,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2006
| MAEMURA Akinori ,
| Japan
| Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
| Korea
| Qian Hualin,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Vinh Ngo,
| Australia
|  
|
| 2007
| MAEMURA Akinori ,
|  Japan
| Kusumba Sridhar,
| India
| Wei Mao,
| China
| Vinh Ngo,
| Australia
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Ming-Cheng Liang,
| Taiwan
| Paul Wilson,
| Australia
|
| 2008
| MAEMURA Akinori,
| Japan
| Kusumba Sridhar,
| India
| Wei Mao,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| Ming-Cheng Liang,
| Taiwan
| Paul Wilson,
| Australia
|
| 2009
| MAEMURA Akinori,
| Japan
| Hyun-Joon Kwon,
| Korea
| Jian Zhang,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| James Spenceley,
| Australia
| Paul Wilson,
| Australia
|
| 2010
| MAEMURA Akinori,
| Japan
| Hyun-Joon Kwon,
| Korea
| Jian Zhang,
| China
| Ma Yan,
| China
| Che-Hoo Cheng,
| Hong Kong
| Kuo-Wei Wu,
| Taiwan
| James Spenceley,
| Australia
| Paul Wilson,
| Australia
|  
|   
| The table is obvious on many unspoken but visibly glaring aspects which,
coupled
| with certain important excerpts of the by-laws reproduced below, will help in
| understanding the areas of concern as well as the way forward for the esteemed
| APNIC-TALK group:
|  
| The Executive Council:
| .       .....the Executive Council shall be composed of seven members elected
at
| AGMs in accordance with the provisions of by-laws.
| .      Executive Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in their
| personal capacity and shall act in the best interests of the APNIC membership
and
| not the Member organisation to which that individual belongs. Only one
individual
| per Member organisation may be elected to sit on the Executive Council.
|  
| Quorum
| .       A meeting of the Executive Council is duly constituted for all purposes
| if at the commencement of the meeting there are present in person not less than
| one half of the total number of Council members or their duly authorised
| representatives.
|  
| EC Confidentiality             
|   
| .       All business undertaken by the EC is confidential to the EC.
| .       All EC members are requested to execute a formal non-disclosure
| undertaking with APNIC
| .       EC members should respect this confidentiality by:
|  
|           -  not recording EC meetings
|           -  not inviting other members to participate in, or listen into EC
| meetings without the prior permission    
|                of the Chair of the EC
|           -  not circulating EC mail messages to any third party without the
| express permission of the Chair
|              of the EC-not divulging any membership information of which they
are
| aware as an EC member.
|  
|  
| Regards and best wishes,
|  
| Naresh Ajwani
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| apnic-talk mailing list
| [email protected]
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
|
|

 _____  

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100309/acbfc3a2/attachment.html

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk


End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16
******************************************

_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16, Rajesh Chharia <=