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.