[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms
From: "Naresh"
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:48:36 +0530
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 :-)

Terry Wrote:

"I'm not sure I would use ICANN's by-laws as the only centre for

Naresh responded:

1 citizen 1 vote is a global phenomenon of democratic values. During policy
proposal, I assure you more substantiation.

I have not proposed NOMCOM :-). I have proposed Independent Electoral Body
to conduct elections.

Terry wrote:

As I understand it, while the community gets to consider it. A change like
this must go to a member vote, under the current voting system.

Naresh responded:

I know the challenge and willing to take it at every platform-with
support...without support.

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani 

-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Manderson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:20 PM
To: Naresh
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election reforms

Hi Naresh,

On 22/03/2010, at 11:54 AM, Naresh wrote:

> Dear All,
> Before proposing the policy, I had promised to explore the voting process
being followed across all other 4 RIRs and accordingly had researched into
this aspect.  The analysis is being forwarded herewith so that one can refer
to the same and it may help in reaching conclusions.

I would hope that any proposal would also come with rationale and evidence
attached. I can't see myself hunting back a couple months to find your email
as a reference.

> No RIR has proportionate voting strength but for LACNIC and there also the
magnitude is not like that at APNIC (1-65 per member). All these RIRs
realize that proportionate voting strength is against equality which is the
basic essence of internet. Would reiterate here that Internet is the leveler
and not the divider. Yes, instead we should welcome/explore the
proportionate representation. It is very important for engaging stakeholders
from all fronts so that every APNIC member, having different
understanding/challenges, is given the due consideration.

To be honest I think the argument that equality of the internet should be
reflected in voting power for the board of the APNIC secretariat is probably
weak. I think better to suggest that since IP addresses and other internet
resources are not "owned" by the organisation to which they are allocated
the base membership fee of AUD 1180 constitutes the member proportion and
the remainder of the membership fee appears more as a service fee. Otherwise
any organisation will simply say "I pay more to the secretariat as a
membership fee, therefore I demand greater representation in selecting a
board with which I am comfortable and believe will ensure proper running of
the secretariat and its affairs"

I also question if the APNIC region is mature enough across the board to run
as a '1 member 1 vote' mechanism.

> Proposed Election reform point No. 3 regarding the 'Term duration' is
actually connected to abovesaid point 2 only because if we have to engage
more stakeholders, we have to limit the terms.  Forwarding the gist of the
by-laws being followed at ICANN;

I'm not sure I would use ICANN's by-laws as the only centre for

What do the other RIRs do? (not saying APNIC should follow them, but you
used them as an example earlier.)

> .3. At least one month before the commencement of each annual meeting, the
Nominating Committee shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its
selection of Directors for seats with terms beginning at the conclusion of
the annual meeting.

Are you suggesting a nominations committee as well? and how is that
committee formed?
What happens to your 'limited term' arrangement if the nominations committee
cannot furnish a suitable candidate?

Don't get me wrong, I like the general idea of a nominations committee as it
acts as a filter to ensure that candidates are indeed qualified - but it
does still come with its own issues. Sometimes nominations committees can
create an indoctrination effect which simply solidifies a group-think

> Undoubtedly, the methods and processes being followed at APNIC are
satisfactory but the contention is that one has to not only act fair but
also be fair in appearance and our maturity lies in giving chance to others
than continuing for decades together.

If it is the case that fairness is not obvious without question then I can't
see how "processes being followed at APNIC are satisfactory".

My observation so far is of a lack of maturity in dealing with a corner
stone situation which might have the downside of members (and stakeholders)
loosing trust in the board, secretariat, and election process. But does that
mean an extensive reform needs to happen? There is this saying.. "don't
throw the baby out with the bath water"..

> We can certainly further debate but shall keep in mind the highest number
of emerging economies are in APNIC region and that's the next billions of
Internet users..new ecosystem of Internet with different kind of
stakeholders- some may be election shy, the others may be language shy and
so on- there is a need to handhold, to engage/motivate them..they can and
shall be leading. Lets open up and allow them.it's their turn..

Its noble of you to want people to have their turn. I personally would be
reluctant to allow candidates onto the EC that need hand-holding, or need
external motivation ... that strikes me as a recipe for a weak board. That
is something that any proposal would have to address completely in my

> Shortly, an election specialist/expert wud propose the policy for kind
consideration of the community.

As I understand it, while the community gets to consider it. A change like
this must go to a member vote, under the current voting system.


apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

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