[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: Brajesh Jain
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:57:09 +0530

Dear Maemura San,


A senior  EC person gave a logic , while you were in the chair, that a person should not be present in counting as ballot identity would be known.

Ballot papers have no name, so how come the identity would be known.


Hope you would give your response.


Brajesh C Jain


ISOC Delhi Chapter



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MAEMURA Akinori
Sent: 09 March 2010 17:15
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections


Dear Desi,


Here's several questions and comments of mine on to several

points which you raised.



Colleagues on apnic-talk,

            especially those present at AMM,


Here I try my best to describe how I perceive on those point.

Your input, positive or negative, are appreciated.



I am sorry to made it lengthy.




In message <[email protected]xxxxx>

   "Re: [apnic-talk] Elections"

   "Desi Valli <[email protected]>" wrote:




| Hi David,


| I can't call this as an evidence but could be considered as per the

| law of interpretation.


| We all went through what happened on the last day, during vote count.

| As a first timer in APNIC conferences, following are some of the

| observations that make me to interpret that the intentions of ECs are

| not neutral, always.


Excuse me,


Do you mean;

            that of EC is possibly un-neutral,

or         thet of EC is never neutral             ?




| Broadly:


| 1. Elections are conducted by ECs instead of an Election commission

|    or someone who is not part of current responsibilities.


To have an independent election committee is valid as a

candidate of revision of election process.


In the current by-laws, there is no clear provision which

provides who conduct the election.  In this case, if Membership

could not conduct it, it would belongs the EC's responsibility.


However, the EC is just handling it as the by-laws provides,

and in practice, everything is handled to Secretariat.


Morever, the members of the EC have been very careful not to

be exposed in Conflict of Interest(CoI) situation.  Any decision

regarding the conduct of the election was done except the

candidates for it.




| 2. Voting is again managed by the secretariat not by a any neutral body.


I have no idea how Secretariat can be not neutral.

For me if Secretariat can be not neutral, any election

committee can be not neutral.


Which benefit do you think Secretariat enjoys?



| 3. The scrutinizers are not selected before the start of election, but

|    only at the time of counting.


I think it better to select them just before counting than

to select them before the election starts.  If the scrutineers

were known, a candidate might be able to access them, or

in other words, any conversation between a candidate and

a scrutineers might be suspected.



| 4. There is NO maximum number of years defined to be an EC, it looked

|    as if the Asian Internet community has a huge shortage of eminent

|    and qualified people.


I am personally proud to be elected several times.


Having a maximum number of re-election is actually one of

practices adopted in such public offices.  valid for the




| 5. THE organisation that is responsible to make Internet work, keeps

|    a LOOPHOLE open in the voting process in the name of proxy voting,

|    that helps the contestants to bargain between, and manipulate the

|    outcome.


| * (I'm from India which is the largest democratic in the world, with

|   more than 750 million eligible voters, conducts the entire election

|   process through electronic voting systems, as the people believe

|   that the ballet system has loopholes for contestants to manipulate

|   the outcome - India is still a developing country)


So you are suggesting to eliminate paper valot and full

employment of electronic voting, right?





| On the specific incident:


For the following points I will not present my thoughts by

item, but in general, I perceived as;


  +        Che-Hoo Cheng complained as a candidate, requested a fix

  +        MA Yan and myself refrained from handling anything

            since we were candidates

  +        Kuo Wei Wu worked as the tentative chair of *the EC

            without candidates*, I asked him for it as he is the

            only officeholder. 

  +        James Spenceley and Hyun-Joon Kwon worked for a fix

            as *the EC without candidates*.


And I believe this was the best the EC could handle the issue.

Since I possibly hold a bias of a candidate, I would love to

have the perspectives from the other people on the floor.

They are pretty much appreciated.




| 6. One of the EC member SUSPENDS the counting process, without HEARING

|    both the sides, or CONSULTING other EC members.


| 7. Does the constitution allows "ONLY ONE" EC to suspend the counting

|    process, without even discussing the case with the other EC members?

|   (I couldn't find any such document online, if so please send me the

|    link)


| 8. The EC who is also a complainant is been appointed as the chair of

|    the "enquiry commission" by another current EC who was the chair at

|    that juncture, in the excuse of he being the contestant. Isn't that

|    obvious that there SHOULD be only neutral person as chair in such

|    an event.


| 9. Even after I objecting the decision of the complainant being the

|    chair of the commission, there were no moral responsibility visible,

|    the chair didn't step-down or ask for a consensus among the members

|    to continue as the chair.


| The explanation of the incident was given to other EC members, only

| after the suspension of counting processes was executed. Good that

| James was matured enough to demand for an explanation before going

| for a consensus on dismissing the counting processes. Otherwise it

| would have been a suo-motto decision of ONE of the ECs, not a democratic

| decision. How could an EC who is believed and trusted to be qualified

| and experienced to run an organisation like APNIC, take such a hasty

| decision? This is good enough to be interpreted/considered as an

| EVIDENCE that the undemocratic decision of suspending the counting

| process without consulting the other EC members, is definitely not

| in the interests of APNIC.


I believe suspension was the only way to wait for a decision.



The entire EC with Secretariat actually tried our best as

democratic as possible in such an unusual situation.



| PS: if I had been an EC, I would have demanded resignation from such

| ECs who displays a total immaturity and incompetency in handling such

| serious issues and taking hasty decisions. The unilateral & dictatorial

| decision of suspending the counting processes is unconstitutional and

| undemocratic.



I do believe the handling for the issue was democratic

enough, if not perfect, since the Membership had a chance

to oppose any fix or to support it.  


However, again, my view might consist of a bias of a successful

candidate.   Therefore I would like to seak the input for those

who were in the AMM.



Any of your inputs would be highly appreciated, Membership.



Best Regards,


MAEMURA Akinori, who was

            Chair of the Executive Council until the election,

            and a successful candidate for the election as well






| Regards

| Desi Valli




apnic-talk mailing list

[email protected]


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