On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:
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.
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 space.
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?