On Mar 9, 2010, at 9:08 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Debates are for allowing people to express openly and referring their view points as hyperbola/impure motivation is not at all discouraging for me atleast.
Problem is, this isn't really a debate. You're insinuating corruption and malfeasance (providing no evidence) and wrapping yourself in the clothes of the righteous victim (without explaining your victimhood, unless you feel people questioning you results in your being victimized), but have yet to provide sufficient information on how you'd like to see things changed for anyone to actually debate the pros and cons.
Changes don’t come easily….
Actually, APNIC was originally conceived to allow for change by members to be done quite easily. Maybe things have changed over the 15 years of APNIC's existence -- I'll admit to not having looked closely.
Please join the debate for three areas of concern:
1. The Electoral Body to conduct elections,
You really need to define what this means as your definition has varied even in this discussion (from ICANN's Nomcom to something else). Be specific. What is the role of the electoral body? What is it's composition? What is it supposed to do in what timeframe? How is it funded? Etc.
Don't answer these questions (and others) here -- write up a policy proposal.
2. Equal voting strength to each member &
Just to be clear, you believe two individuals should be able to outvote (say) ChinaNet or the Indian NIR?
3. Specified terms for the elected Representative
At least this one is relatively easily understood. A concrete proposal, one that specifies maximum term duration, maximum number of terms, how seats would be staggered, how to impose the term limits on existing incumbents, etc., would probably help the membership decide whether this change was desirable.
I am sure, sooner or later, we wud debate above said three areas with dignity.
You're the one who raised Enron -- is that dignified?
As an observer with some small past involvement with APNIC, I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find someone more neutral than I on any of these topics, yet your arguments to date have not been particularly convincing. It is clear that you and some others are unhappy with the current state of affairs and wish to see change, but you have (to date) not sufficiently specified how you want things to change for there to be proper debate.
Until that's done, I'll spare you and others my responses.