Thanks David, I wud
incorporate your following suggestion in our proposal for election reforms:
“More seriously, the
election system used by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the
Internet was much less deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning
to be used. I'm sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue
to evolve. Moving towards full electronic voting might
make sense now that entire countries aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.”
Any other important point you
want to make please?
[Apologies, this mail got
misrouted into my spam box so I didn't see it before I sent my previous email]
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:27 PM,
Desi Valli wrote:
I can’t call
this as an evidence but could be considered as per the law of interpretation.
I'm unfamiliar with this law.
We all went through what happened on the last
day, during vote count. As a first timer in APNIC conferences, following are
some of the observations that make me to interpret that the intentions of ECs
are not neutral, always.
By definition, the members of
the EC cannot be neutral. They are elected presumably because they have
particular views that correspond to how a majority of those holding votes view
1. Elections are
conducted by ECs instead of an Election commission or someone who is not part
of current responsibilities.
I gather things have changed
somewhat significantly since I last observed an APNIC election.
2. Voting is again
managed by the secretariat not by a any neutral body.
I'm unclear what you mean by
"managed". The question of neutrality is relevant when it comes
to how the vote is counted and certified. Was the secretariat involved in
counting the vote or certifying the results?
3. The scrutinizers are
not selected before the start of election, but only at the time of counting.
As mentioned in a previous
note, this reduces the observers are less susceptible to being
4. There is NO maximum
number of years defined to be an EC, it looked as if the Asian Internet
community has a huge shortage of eminent and qualified people.
Or, it could mean that the
membership is happy with the performance of those EC members.
5. THE organisation that
is responsible to make Internet work, keeps a LOOPHOLE open in the voting
process in the name of proxy voting, that helps the contestants to bargain
between, and manipulate the outcome.
Proxy voting is quite common
and its absence would not imply bargaining does not occur. I'm unclear
why you consider it a loophole.
· (I’m from India
which is the largest democratic in the world, with more than 750 million
eligible voters, conducts the entire election process through electronic voting
systems, as the people believe that the ballet system has loopholes for
contestants to manipulate the outcome – India is still a developing
And I'm from a
"developed" country that is famously unable to count votes correctly
and which has been unable to come up with a trustworthy electronic voting
system. Your point? :-)
More seriously, the election
system used by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the Internet was
much less deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning to be used.
I'm sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue to evolve.
Moving towards full electronic voting might make sense now that entire
countries aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.
On the specific incident:
Not being at the APNIC
meeting, I'm unaware of the incident you're speaking of. Just seeing your
side of the situation, it does sound like things were some issues. I
guess the question is whether or not those issues were resolved in a
sufficiently open, transparent, and accountable way to ensure the community
retains trust in the outcome. I gather from your perspective, the answer
apnic-talk mailing list