[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms
From: "Naresh"
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:48:53 +0530

MM,

 

I am not proposing discontinuation of EC at all. But yes, for any individual nothing shall be acceptable, including IPv4 exhaustion at the cost of all inclusiveness. Moreso, why we are doubting that the reforms wud bring negative ECs or why only a few are positive and the rest are negative and have self-interest.

 

Justification for the same being resisted may sound bigger at this moment but when it wud come to decisiveness, this struggle wud get support from all those who believe in:

 

1.      Independent electoral body,

2.      No proportionate voting &

3.      Regular New blood/ideas

 

Regards & best wishes,

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

 

From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:26 AM
To: Naresh
Cc: Terry Manderson; APNIC TALK
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms

 

Naresh,

Changing the by-laws of APNIC requires more than just a policy change, hence you need to convince at least 2/3 of the VOTES of members.   At the moment I think you'd struggle a bit to do that as there doesn't appear to be a great deal of justification of the changes and why that would actually benefit members.    

 

In this time of change with IPv4 running out I see more benefit in experience and long term stability in the EC rather than trying to alter a system that no one's explained why it's worth changing other than in their own self interest.   Having an EC which has long term members right now appears to be a positive not a negative to me at least.

 

MMC

 

On 26/03/2010, at 1:51 AM, Naresh wrote:



MM wrote:

 

..... So you're going to need to do a bit more convincing than you've done currently."

 

Naresh:

 

I am humbled.

 

"Bit more"-Sure, the policy proposal wud cover it. J

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

  

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 11:03 AM
To: Naresh
Cc: Terry Manderson; APNIC TALK
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms

 

 

On 24/03/2010, at 11:48 PM, Naresh wrote:

 

> Hi Terry,

> 

> On March 24, Terry wrote

> " I also question if the APNIC region is mature enough across the board to

> run as a '1 member 1 vote' mechanism."

> 

> Naresh responded:

> 

> APNIC has largest emerging economies, largest democracy and maturity in

> accordance. Fundamentally, we believe in equality; 1 Member=1 Vote :-)

 

So, one vote might represent an APNIC member who has a million IPv4 users and one vote might represent an APNIC member with a single small IPv4 range?   Is that more fair?    I've got really IPv6 customers and soon will have many more - does their future interest beyond IPv4 deserve more than one vote compared to people who have no IPv6 at all?  

 

Fair is harder than it superficially seems. 

 

But I'm still stuck on WHY the changes are worth while.   You're wanting change but to have these changes happen will require more than 66% as per Part III 25 of the by-laws.  So you're going to need to do a bit more convincing than you've done currently.

 

MMC=

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>