[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:54:47 +1030
Naresh,
Again before you can move the debate to those three things you need to create motivation for change.  At the moment there is scepticism not motivation for your suggested change.

The three things you wish to change appear to be explicitly about changing the make up of the EC by altering the rules.  Given that the EC appear to have the support of the members the desire for change by you must be clearly explained.  Especially as many have been repeatedly reelected - which I see as a vote of confidence not a reason to remove them.

My only suggestion for the issue last Friday is that the scrutineers are selected by a vote of members from the floor to ensure that all present are happy with them.   

I'm still at a point of debating the motivation for change as I don't see, except from you, any desire.

Regards,
Matthew



Please join the debate for three areas of concern:
 
1.     The Electoral Body to conduct elections,


What do you propose - please actually give 
2.     Equal voting strength to each member &
3.     Specified terms for the elected Representative
 
I am sure, sooner or later, we wud debate above said three areas with dignity.
 
Regards and best wishes
 
Naresh Ajwani
 
 
 
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 10 March 2010 10:03
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: David Conrad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
 
Naresh,
My apologies for my continual bluntness, I understand that this isn't culturally normal for a lot of APNIC countries, but my feeling is that if we don't actually convey what we mean we will never actually get to the bottom of the issue.
 
We're going in circles.   References to the Olympics and ENRON aren't helping much.
 
If you want change then I suggest you outline precisely the changes to the rules you want and stop talking in hyperbola. 
 
ie.  write a set of rules you'd expect people to vote on.  
 
At the moment I feel that your reasons for wanting change have an impure motivation because of the constant hyperbola.   Currently you're wanting change but won't say precisely the rules you want and you keep implicitly implying that good people are corrupt.   None of these are helping other members share your desire for change.
 
One of the other reasons that I feel your motives aren't pure is that you and others from India appear to be the ones who are wishing change but it was the candidate and scrutineer from India who had the connection which caused the issue last Friday. 
 
Please post a set of rules you think we should change to so that we can debate and analyse them rather than talking in Hyperbola.
 
Regards,
Matthew
(Speaking, as always, for myself)
 
On 10/03/2010, at 2:29 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:


Dear Matthew,
 
Three core values of the Olympic Movement which demonstrate how Olympism can be expressed in our lives. These values of Excellence, Friendship and Respect are not only about winning but also about particpating. It’s about mutual understanding among people from all over the world. It’s about respect for rules and regulations.
 
I am not going to be divertedJ. I am here to particpate in the debate for Right Rules and Regulations and therefore invites you all for the following:
 
1.     Is it wrong to have electoral body for conducting the elections?
2.     Is it wrong to have voting pattern for EC as it is for NRO NC election?
3.     Is it wrong to have fresh blood/thought on regular basis?
 
Regards and best wishes,
 
Naresh Ajwani
 
PS: I wud keep respecting you for your view points. J
 
 
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 10 March 2010 09:01
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: David Conrad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
 
Hi Naresh,
 
I think you're deliberately not responding to people's questions.
 
There isn't a problem here except that your candidate didn't get elected and you and your compatriots feel slighted.   
 
I still assert that you are trying to (and the post below confirms it for me) dress this up as a conspiracy against some nations within APNIC.  Which, given India is one of the 9 nations to have had representation on the EC, is hilarious.
 
You ARE actually asserting corruption and underhandness where there is none.  But you won't even admit to that.
 
Given this thread and what has been alleged about the process of the election I think it's good the way the election ended up.
 
MMC
 
On 10/03/2010, at 1:54 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:



Dear Matthew,
 
Push to the whistle blewers is nothing new. I don’t find any such references made by you in my response. We are debating the following:
 
1.     Electoral body for the elections
2.     Voting Strength
3.     Term for EC
 
The example of Enron is in response to the brand example of Walmart.-Big brands and what we want to be as a brand.
 
 
Regards and best wishes,
 
Naresh Ajwani
 
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 10 March 2010 08:48
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: David Conrad; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
 
Naresh,
 
Have you considered that it maybe that the members of APNIC are voting for those who they think will serve them best as members of the EC rather than a major conspiracy?  
 
Maybe rather than complaining about the process the discussion needs to turn towards the candidates themselves and why people didn't vote for them?   Did they make an effort to explain their skills, experience and credentials to the members?    Are they claiming that in fact the people elected are not suitable?
 
Have you considered that by writing what you did below you're effectively implying that the EC is corrupt?   Have you got some evidence to back this fairly serious claim?
 
Really, this is a farce - this isn't about the EC voting this is about people unhappy they weren't elected and are trying to justify that by blaming other people.   I think some apologies to the EC are in order for trying to assert that they are corrupt.
 
MMC
Speaking for himself
 
 
 
 
On 10/03/2010, at 1:33 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:




Dear David,
 
The big brand was even ENRON-lop sided culture/norms give lop sided results. Push to the whistle blewers is nothing new, my reference to OLYMPICS is in the context of RESPECT.
 
1.     I have explained Electoral College/body in my last mail.
2.     Yes EC members are to represent themselves but why don’t we research that how come with 30 members support few get elected whereas despite 60 members support one is not elected. Kindly refer the contexts.
3.     We have started a debate, policy wud follow.
 
My ENRON example shall clarify that it’s better to correct things on time than to wait for enron. I have not referred to ITU this time. J
 
Regards and best wishes,
 
Naresh Ajwani
 
 
 
 
 
From: David Conrad [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 10 March 2010 03:04
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
 
Naresh,
 
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
I don’t think there is any challenge over the need of an electoral college for conducting the elections.
 
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "electoral college".





1.     When we have proportionate voting strengths to the size of our members why can’t we have proportionate representation? 
 
Because, as has been pointed out, the EC members (are supposed to) represent themselves, not their organization, their country, their language, etc.  If you believe they are not representing themselves and are, instead, representing some specific subset, then that would suggest the need of a recall, not necessarily of restructuring representation.





Today world’s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics.  
 
I thought the world's biggest brand was Walmart.





Never Mind, If we can have NRO NC election on single vote per member basis, why can’t we have the same for the EC election?
 
As I understand it, NRO NC members each represent their RIR.  





1.     When there is a fixed term for the ICANN Director, why can’t we have the fixed term for the EC in APNIC?
 
I would imagine if the APNIC community agrees this is a good thing, you can.  However, it isn't clear to me what problem you're solving with term limits and there are definitely non-trivial implications of term limits.
 
Have you submitted a policy proposal to impose term limits? 





The call is ours, should we have the similar brand value of Olympics or allow the organisations like ITU to puncture us forever because of a few ?
 
I'm not sure why you're attempting to bring the ITU into this discussion.  If there are issues with the structure of APNIC, those should be addressed directly and discussion on solutions should be examined for their merits and costs rather than raising the spectre of an external party.
 
Regards,
-drc
 


_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>