[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 21:07:33 +0900
Dear Naresh,
 
Even though you may have a concern for the delay of NIR process,
I still feel some kind of logical leap between it and changing the whole of election system
(or changing everything in APNIC). Isn't there any other solution?
 
Rgs,
Masato YAMANISHI


From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:46 PM
To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部); [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

Good foundation gives good results. J

 

What is right today may not be right tomorrow like what was right yesterday is not right today-we have to keep evolving our process to keep pace with the changing world.

 

New thoughts toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for the members-this may not be an issue with already NIR possessing members, Why for so long there was a suspension of NIR process...who were responsible for it. Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts of CIR?

 

Dear Yamanishi San, Hope it addresses your query. We are more concerned on ITU’s approach than any individual’s role. We shall reform before anyone points them out and challenges our EXISTENCE.

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 13:48
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Dear Naresh and all,

 

It seems that your concern (and recent discussions) are focused on the composition

of EC and the election system. However, IMHO, the composition is just the surface

and the election system is just a procedure.

Most important point for all stakeholder is the output of EC and each EC member's

contribution for it, I believe.

 

What is your concerns from this point?

 

Rgs,

Masato YAMANISHI

 


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Naresh Ajwani
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:02 PM
To: 'Aftab Siddiqui'; 'Matthew Moyle-Croft'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

This transparency has to come-how voting took place, number of votes casted to all candidates....we can’t limit this information to selectd few.....Shall we move to way forward or still more discussions are required on the concerns?

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aftab Siddiqui
Sent: 09 March 2010 11:05
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Hello Mathew,

In my opinion the problem is not with very "Small Voting Rights" but the problem is how many members from these economies actually cast their vote. Can any one from APNIC share these stats?

 

Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <[email protected]> wrote:

 

On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:



Dear all,

How about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who have never had a member elected and cannot do so in the foreseeable future with the same regulations.

 

There's ~56 countries which are in the APNIC RIR "zone".  I count 9 (Japan, Australia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) that have had members from their countries elected to the board.

 

 

The seat could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus. 

 

One thing missing from the table of WHO got elected is who has run for election.   Of the nations you mention above have any of them attempted to gain a position on the EC and been unable?  If they were elected to the EC through a change of policy what would you assert the difference would be as far as APNIC is run and resources allocated?   Especially as my understanding that the policies behind resource allocation etc are set by members voting by show of hands at the meetings not by the EC in private.   

 

There seems to be a number of people pushing the idea that somehow some nations are favoured over others at APNIC and that somehow the nations with smaller voting rights are "missing out".   Is this really the case?

 

Is it a language issue or a cultural issue?   Is the issue that some people assume it's harder for them than others or that it's harder because they don't do it that often?   The company I work for does quite a bit of work to do our allocations  especially now we have to justify some historic space.  

 

Is the actual issue education and maybe some help/mentoring from others?  eg.  maybe some exchange of ideas between members in different parts of the region might actually help those who don't interact with APNIC as often for allocation get some help from those who do or have less cultural/language issues?   

 

Regards,

Matthew   

-- 
Matthew Moyle-Croft

Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs

Internode /Agile

Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [email protected]    Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

 


_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

 

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