[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: "Naresh Ajwani"
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:54:39 +0530

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




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.



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




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.









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