Dear Yamanishi San,
NIR was just one of the examples
Nowhere have I said that
we should change the entire election system. Please refer to my mail commenting
over 3 broad areas of concern. These concerns can be vetted by any
expert/specialist who wud also join the chorus.
We need an electoral body—the existing system forces us to be a Judge for
our own cause.
We need a process to facilitate 48 other
countries to have the representation in EC--- We can’t have skewed democratic
values and invite “Cartel/collusion thoughts/comments” for our systems.
We need new thoughts/faces on regular basis to
lead us--- Example: why not you be that new face? J
At the cost of being
repetitive, it’s about the existence, please.
Regards and best wishes,
Even though you may have a concern for the delay
of NIR process,
I still feel some kind of logical leap
between it and changing the whole of election system
(or changing everything in APNIC). Isn't there any
From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:46
To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部); [email protected];
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk]
Good foundation gives
good results. J
What is right today may
not be right tomorrow like what was right yesterday is not right today-we have
to keep evolving our process to keep pace with the changing world.
New thoughts toward NIR
are more meaningful and inspiring for the members-this may not be an issue with
already NIR possessing members, Why for so long there was a suspension of NIR
process...who were responsible for it. Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts
Dear Yamanishi San, Hope
it addresses your query. We are more concerned on ITU’s approach than any
individual’s role. We shall reform before anyone points them out and challenges
Regards and best wishes
Dear Naresh and all,
It seems that your concern (and recent
discussions) are focused on the composition
of EC and the election system. However, IMHO, the
composition is just the surface
and the election system is just a procedure.
Most important point for all stakeholder is
the output of EC and each EC member's
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
To: 'Aftab Siddiqui'; 'Matthew
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk]
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
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:
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
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
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
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
Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [email protected]
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909 Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999 Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
apnic-talk mailing list