On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
I also trust individuals and professional bodies and my opening remarks to this debate confirm it but the enlightenment lies in far-sightedness and reforming incumbency by addressing of all the possible concerns.
You cannot address all possible concerns, since by addressing some concerns, you'll create new ones.
If there are concerns, they should be clearly identified in ways that all parties can understand. Solutions can then be discussed and the pros and cons of each solution can be weighed. Nothing is without cost.
Hope, you are not against accommodating "view-points". In true democracy, the worst of the opponent is motivated to have his say; he is allowed to see the processes and not pushed away by the phrases like "trust" or "conflict of interest".
It is critically important that Internet resource management operations be conducted in an open, transparent, and accountable way. Is there some aspect of APNIC process that is hidden?
With respect to "true democracy", the obvious question you must answer in the context of APNIC is who has the franchise to vote. It isn't clear to me who you think the voters should be. Could you clarify?
If we want to be an enlightened organisation, we shall not hesitate in surfacing issues/concerns.
I'm unaware of anyone hesitating in surfacing their issues or concerns. Has someone been blocked from doing so?