..... So you're going to need to do a bit more convincing than you've done currently."
"Bit more"-Sure, the policy proposal wud cover it. J
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:03 AM
Cc: Terry Manderson; APNIC TALK
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms
On 24/03/2010, at 11:48 PM, Naresh wrote:
> On March 24, Terry wrote
> " I also question if the APNIC region is mature enough across the board to
> run as a '1 member 1 vote' mechanism."
> APNIC has largest emerging economies, largest democracy and maturity in
> accordance. Fundamentally, we believe in equality; 1 Member=1 Vote :-)
So, one vote might represent an APNIC member who has a million IPv4 users and one vote might represent an APNIC member with a single small IPv4 range? Is that more fair? I've got really IPv6 customers and soon will have many more - does their future interest beyond IPv4 deserve more than one vote compared to people who have no IPv6 at all?
Fair is harder than it superficially seems.
But I'm still stuck on WHY the changes are worth while. You're wanting change but to have these changes happen will require more than 66% as per Part III 25 of the by-laws. So you're going to need to do a bit more convincing than you've done currently.