[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections ([email protected])

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections ()
From: Brajesh Jain
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:35:06 +0530
Dear Yamanishi San,

Actually the concern is that regions not having representation in EC feel
that their view is not heard. If actually it is being heard, there is very
less visibility that it is indeed so.

Hence it is appropriate that there is mechanism to hear and respond to all.
EC representation gives that confidence.

With regards

Brajesh Jain
ISOC Delhi Chapter

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: 09 March 2010 13:49
To: [email protected]
Subject: apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 27

Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
        [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  Elections ([email protected])


Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:18:10 +0900
From: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
        <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
        <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"

Dear Naresh and all,
It seems that your concern (and recent discussions) are focused on the
of EC and the election system. However, IMHO, the composition is just the
and the election system is just a procedure.
Most important point for all stakeholder is the output of EC and each EC
contribution for it, I believe.
What is your concerns from this point?


        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?
        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
        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?   
        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]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 27

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>