I happened to be present while candidates for APNIC EC were giving their
resume during the poll process. I heard 10 years/12 years continuity.
Country/region can not be ignored. So percentage working out by Terry does
not give correct presentation.
Yes I agree that that there is election process and would call for specific
process to change.
I want to mention why the question is arising. The APNIC EC leadership needs
to make sure that they transparently are taking view from from
countries/regions not having representation in APNIC EC. I am very sad and
disheartened that such view taking is not at all visible. I spent 5 days at
KL meetings. Not even one EC person thought it fit to spend few minutes to
try to get some viewpont of ISOC in delhi. On the contrary I felt ( may be
wrongly) complete neglect and high arrogance on the part of EC leadership. I
, of course, would be happy to be corrected if EC leadership gives its view
During election process, one of the APNIC senior EC person severely
questioned judgement of APNIC Executive Secretary in following rules/process
( Who undountedly is one of the very learned persons on Internet scene).
Same senior EC person also questioned that a person , otherwise eligible to
be present during counting process, 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. This clearly pointed that this senior EC person was
trying to protect/hide some specific pattern of voting which would not allow
any one other that the collaborating candidates to win.
If we believe Internet as controlled by open process and transparent method,
I urge the community to ask for results of ballot and pattern of voting for
all candidates. APNIC staff is competent to put in garphic or other form for
all to clearly see.I appeal to APNIC EC to respond and demonstrate that they
are true leaders and the APNIC EC does represent all regions. If they hide
behind coterie of rules, my impression ( though may be wrong ) would get
firmed in the unfair representation.
If so, ITU would probably be better bet where all regions have fair
May I request those community persons who know better than me ( I have only
attended two APNIC meets) and believe in openness and transparency would
ISOC Delhi Chapter
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Sent: 09 March 2010 10:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15
Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."
1. Re: Elections (Terry Manderson)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 15:22:35 +1000
From: Terry Manderson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I respond here as only an interested community participant. I am not member,
nor do I work for a member. I do sit on a couple of boards that are grounded
in both Profit and Not-for-Profit and cover different industries. So I look
at your email with some interest (I'm fascinated with corporate governance
Firstly as you cut-n-pasted from the website: "Executive Council members
shall serve on the Executive Council in their personal capacity" I have
redone your matrix (attached) removing the country of origin. In light of
the RIR, as a service entity for the Internet, country affiliation shouldn't
matter as the EC member would state any conflicts as required by appropriate
director conduct. I have further coloured the EC members separately (as
individuals). Additionally I have removed Paul Wilson from the matrix as he
isn't elected but has a seat due to his employment status and it's the EC's
responsibility modify that. I think this is a more appropriate way to
represent the EC trends.
I've also summarised the yearly net change of the EC in terms of a
percentage from the previous year, assuming 1998 as 0% even though the first
EC was in 1996. Do remember that in most circumstances the EC member holds
the position for 2 years. Percentage change as follows:
1999 60% (remember 2 EC positions added)
If you want to take the average over the 12 years, the Executive Committee
experiences an average 22.5% change.
Also, if you take a look at the average consecutive years of EC members'
tenure, it is 3.9 years.
Is this in the bounds of being acceptable?
Now we get to the fun part.. Since the RIR is a not-for-profit organisation
in place for member benefit, when you are looking at Board composition there
are some risks and benefits you might want to consider.
- Tenure, short v's long (as both a function of stability AND
- Talent (are the members selected/elected based on their
talents/perspectives as board members?)
- Is talent being upgraded and/or in lieu of tenure?
- Can both majority and minority shareholders(*) affect the Board
(*) quoted from a Oxford Law Journal article. You could
substitute "members" here.
So what I think you are getting at in an obtuse manner is that while there
seems to be incremental changes to the Board and that average board tenure
isn't excessive you feel the voting mechanism needs review?
>From memory Akinori presented in Beijing that it was up to the members to
request a review of current APNIC voting system (in terms of votes assigned
and proxies/preference use). I would think this still stands. (I would have
to check transcripts but I also think it was up to the members to request a
SIG/BoF be formed)
When voting systems are evaluated, and in this case how persons are elected
to the EC, there are many aspects to consider - some are:
- what is the state in other like (industry or responsibility and
financial level) organisations
- the constituencies involved (are they all equal/alike in scope)
- person/organisational exclusions (who cannot be nominated)
- participation levels
- In play systems (current vote weights, and so forth)
- The mechanisms in play and what is required for change versus the
- How talent is identified/nominated
- Any intrinsic or extrinsic factors
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: apnic ec.pdf
Size: 24783 bytes
Desc: not available
-------------- next part --------------
On 09/03/2010, at 3:23 AM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
> Dear All,
> On the basis of my association and experience during the last few years, I
appreciate and respect the processes and bottom up approach being followed
at APNIC and have been strongly advocating the same at various forums. In
the same spirit, I am confident that the call made for election reforms, at
the recently held meet at KL, would also be looked into with a positive and
all inclusive manner.
> Before any reforms are undertaken, one needs to understand the past
scenario and the composition of EC (given below) which can be a good
> The table is obvious on many unspoken but visibly glaring aspects which,
coupled with certain important excerpts of the by-laws reproduced below,
will help in understanding the areas of concern as well as the way forward
for the esteemed APNIC-TALK group:
> The Executive Council:
> ? .....the Executive Council shall be composed of seven members
elected at AGMs in accordance with the provisions of by-laws.
> ? Executive Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in
their personal capacity and shall act in the best interests of the APNIC
membership and not the Member organisation to which that individual belongs.
Only one individual per Member organisation may be elected to sit on the
> ? A meeting of the Executive Council is duly constituted for all
purposes if at the commencement of the meeting there are present in
personnot less than one half of the total number of Council members or their
duly authorised representatives.
> EC Confidentiality
> ? All business undertaken by the EC is confidential to the EC.
> ? All EC members are requested to execute a formal non-disclosure
undertaking with APNIC
> ? EC members should respect this confidentiality by:
> ? not recording EC meetings
> ? not inviting other members to participate in, or listen into
EC meetings without the prior permission
> of the Chair of the EC
> ? not circulating EC mail messages to any third party without
the express permission of the Chair
> of the EC?not divulging any membership information of which
they are aware as an EC member.
> Regards and best wishes,
> Naresh Ajwani
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
apnic-talk mailing list
End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 15
apnic-talk mailing list