[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: "Naresh Ajwani"
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:23:24 +0530

Thank you for the commencement of true debate and I clarify to all that our discussions shall not divert to any individual. Its about concerns which broadly are as follows:


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


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”


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.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani





-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Manderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 10:53
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections


Hi Naresh,


I respond here as only an interested community participant. I am not member, nor do I work for a member. I do sit on a couple of boards that are grounded in both Profit and Not-for-Profit and cover different industries. So I look at your email with some interest (I'm fascinated with corporate governance :) .


Firstly as you cut-n-pasted from the website: "Executive Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in their personal capacity" I have redone your matrix (attached) removing the country of origin. In light of the RIR, as a service entity for the Internet, country affiliation shouldn't matter as the EC member would state any conflicts as required by appropriate director conduct. I have further coloured the EC members separately (as individuals). Additionally I have removed Paul Wilson from the matrix as he isn't elected but has a seat due to his employment status and it's the EC's responsibility modify that. I think this is a more appropriate way to represent the EC trends.


I've also summarised the yearly net change of the EC in terms of a percentage from the previous year, assuming 1998 as 0% even though the first EC was in 1996. Do remember that in most circumstances the EC member holds the position for 2 years. Percentage change as follows:


1998 0%

1999 60% (remember 2 EC positions added) 2000 14%

2001 42%

2002 0%

2003 28%

2004 14%

2005 14%

2006 0%

2007 42%

2008 14%

2009 42%

2010 0%


If you want to take the average over the 12 years, the Executive Committee experiences an average 22.5% change.


Also, if you take a look at the average consecutive years of EC members' tenure, it is 3.9 years.


Is this in the bounds of being acceptable?


Now we get to the fun part.. Since the RIR is a not-for-profit organisation in place for member benefit, when you are looking at Board composition there are some risks and benefits you might want to consider.


          - Tenure, short v's long (as both a function of stability AND flexibility)

          - Talent (are the members selected/elected based on their talents/perspectives as board members?)

          - Is talent being upgraded and/or in lieu of tenure?

          - Can both majority and minority shareholders(*) affect the Board composition


                    (*) quoted from a Oxford Law Journal article. You could substitute "members" here.


So what I think you are getting at in an obtuse manner is that while there seems to be incremental changes to the Board and that average board tenure isn't excessive you feel the voting mechanism needs review?


From memory Akinori presented in Beijing that it was up to the members to request a review of current APNIC voting system (in terms of votes assigned and proxies/preference use). I would think this still stands. (I would have to check transcripts but I also think it was up to the members to request a SIG/BoF be formed)


When voting systems are evaluated, and in this case how persons are elected to the EC, there are many aspects to consider - some are:

          - what is the state in other like (industry or responsibility and financial level) organisations

          - the constituencies involved (are they all equal/alike in scope)

          - person/organisational exclusions (who cannot be nominated)

          - participation levels

          - In play systems (current vote weights, and so forth)

          - The mechanisms in play and what is required for change versus the status quo.

          - How talent is identified/nominated

          - Any intrinsic or extrinsic factors





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