[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections ([email protected])

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections ()
From: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 20:54:55 +0900
Dear Brajesh,

I'm afraid you will not be able to convince enough number of people
without describing more concrete case which you may have concern.

Rgs,
Masato YAMANISHI

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brajesh Jain
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:05 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections ([email protected])
> 
> Dear Yamanishi San,
> 
> Actually the concern is that regions not having 
> representation in EC feel
> that their view is not heard. If actually it is being heard, 
> there is very
> less visibility that it is indeed so.
> 
> Hence it is appropriate that there is mechanism to hear and 
> respond to all.
> EC representation gives that confidence.
> 
> With regards
> 
> Brajesh Jain
> Chair
> ISOC Delhi Chapter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: 09 March 2010 13:49
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 27
> 
> Send apnic-talk mailing list submissions to
>       [email protected]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>       http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>       [email protected]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       [email protected]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of apnic-talk digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re:  Elections ([email protected])
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 17:18:10 +0900
> From: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
> To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
>       <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Message-ID:
>       <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
> 
> 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?
>  
> Rgs,
> Masato YAMANISHI
> 
> ________________________________
> 
>       From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Naresh Ajwani
>       Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:02 PM
>       To: 'Aftab Siddiqui'; 'Matthew Moyle-Croft'
>       Cc: [email protected]
>       Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>       
>       
>       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
>        
>       Naresh Ajwani
>        
>       
>       From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
> Aftab Siddiqui
>       Sent: 09 March 2010 11:05
>       To: Matthew Moyle-Croft
>       Cc: [email protected]
>       Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
>        
>       Hello Mathew,
>       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?
>        
>       Regards,
>       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:
>       
>       
>       
>       Dear all,
>       How about 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 board.
>        
>                
>               The seat 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 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?   
>        
>       Regards,
>       Matthew   
>       -- 
>       Matthew Moyle-Croft
>       Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs
>       Internode /Agile
>       Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
>       Email: [email protected]    Web: http://www.on.net
> <http://www.on.net/> 
>       Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
>       Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909
>        
>       
>       _______________________________________________
>       apnic-talk mailing list
>       [email protected]
>       http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
>        
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/
> 20100309/65680
> 108/attachment.html 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> 
> 
> End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 27
> ******************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
> 
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>