[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: David Conrad
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:27:50 -0800

On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:53 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:

1.     An Election Body shall be responsible for conducting elections -You cannot be a Judge in your own Cause”.

I haven't seen an APNIC election in quite a while, however in the past, the election was administered and votes counted by non-involved third parties.  Has this changed?  The fact that the "election body" is informal and established ad hoc at the time of election can be seen as a positive since (depending on how the non-involved third parties are chosen) it lessens the chances that the "election body" can be influenced.  Hard to influence somebody if you don't know who they are.  

2.     Guaranteed result, because of state of origin and distribution of votes with one block based on the number of IPs procurement, is not a true democracy or bottom-up process. Sadly, the voting process reflects on the skewed understanding of democracy and shall be corrected - Internet is the leveller and not the divider; “one who can afford to procure more IPs can’t have more rights than the one who can’t” 

The fact that an organization has more IP addresses is used as a proxy to indicate the number of people for which that organization is responsible in terms of Internet address-related policy discussions.  It is true this is not a true democracy and as a proxy can be subverted by an organization that can justify a large block of addresses, however, you don't appear to be arguing for true democracy.  You appear to be proposing "economy" origin as an alternative proxy.  It isn't clear to me this would be better, particularly in cases where a government (or government representative) does not reflect the interests of the Internet-related organization in their country (or the will of the people).

3.     Specified terms so that all can get the representation in decision making of Internet policies. Internet enables/connects any part of the world; the current process  is creating incumbency-fresh thoughts/approach is must for the growth of Internet.

So you are arguing for term limits?  An interesting thought, although one that is not without negatives in terms of continuity and susceptibility towards entrenching lobbying  and/or bureaucratic power.  However, from the statistics Terry has provided, it would seem there is a relatively high level of change within the EC, so I'm unclear as to what problem term limits would be helpful in solving. 


apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>