[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51
From: "Lalit Chandra Mathur"
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:38 +0530




From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew Moyle-Croft
Sent: 10 March 2010 16:23
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51



On 10/03/2010, at 6:34 PM, Rajesh Chharia wrote:

Dear MM,


After going through the discussion happening on APNIC TALK, I thought now to say some thing.......Your apology to Naresh is not sufficient as without knowing about the issues of the last day, you have accused many other members also over the same.


I apologised only for my bluntness which is about ensuring that the interests of some are held above the interests of all.


Naresh won’t get disturbed by your mails, he is above all such petty accusations but you definitely owe us an apology.


For?   Asking what the real issue is?  How does that require an apology?   I'm pleased that you've, as below, actually out lined what the issues are rather than talking about changing something without explaining motivation.


As a President of ISPAI, I must remind you that the issue started on the timeline mentioned for the proxy registration on the website. The same is pasted below for your reference too:


This is APNIC.  Not ISPAI.

[Lalit Chandra Mathur] Dear All, when Mr. Rajesh Chharia raises the issue, he is communicating as President of ISPAI, a body that represents the ISPs of India and not just ‘speaking for myself’ , hence warrants more respect and seriousness for all stakeholders in APNIC! A voice speaking for a community and not an individual cannot be taken lightly by anyone, especially ‘an individual’.


India is an important stakeholder in APNIC, In other words, brushing-off with a terse ‘This is APNIC. Not ISPAI’, is derogatory and insulting to all of us ISP’s in India and not in line with the spirit of a bottom-up & transparent approach that is needed in a body like APNIC. Instead of being defensive & protective to the ‘seat’, my view is that Internet professionals like the authors of these mails, should reflect and understand the spirit of a global, boundary-less ‘Internet-for-all’ and allow a fair representation for all stakeholders.


With regards,


Lalit Mathur, an ISP of India and member of ISPAI




As the words were not positioned rightly, the message came as that the last time is 5 p.m. ( 9.00 Hrs +8 UTC of KL times conveys that only).


APNIC has always had members in many timezones -> why hasn't this issue come up before?   I arranged to be delegated our proxies many DAYS in advance to be able to vote at the meeting.   

When the same was communicated on the records, we were told that the EC would take the decision which surprised us and eventually our members lost over 200 votes. I repeat that all is on the records and now tell me what’s wrong if we lost the confidence in the body responsible for the election and therefore wanted to be a scrutiniser/observer as per the norms laid-“NON EC member and not voted”. How community can overlook that EC being elected are responsible to decide on such sensitive issues. How the ECs without advised quorum can take such decisions-3 ECs were contesting elections and only 3 (other than PW) were present in KL meet. How conflict of interest doesn’t arise among their relationships especially when they are from the same belt.


None of what Naresh seems to affect any of this.   A clarification of the rules maybe needed for the future, but this still appears to be very sour grapes - especially as it did not go your way.   Changing the rules to ensure your candidate is elected next time appears to be very against the spirit of democracy.   Especially in the light of, on one hand, having an issue with proxies but then undermining the election impartiality by having a non-impartial scrutineer because you didn't like the EC's decision.


At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand about when the time for cut off is.   Perhaps in future a standardised time with a timezone (Maybe 17:00 on the most Western timezone in the APNIC region?) 


Instead of demanding the elections null and void, we maintained the poise and supported the motion on the reforms and initiated the debate to propose the way forward.  We never wanted to refer all these aspects and like gentlemen debate the way forward but have been deeply pained by yours and David’s mails. When Naresh refers Enron, he explains that we shall not allow laid back approaches to get into that situation and you guys divert it to accusations.


Naresh started the accusations but wasn't willing to actually outline the motives and you have continued by implying that the EC are somehow incompetent or corrupt because they did not decided regarding the proxies in your favour.   If you're asking for change and making those kinds of accusations then you need to accept that people will question you and your motives severely.



Please refer to the mails of Naresh who started with the background and summarised on three areas of concern.


The three areas Naresh raised do not seem to fix this issue with proxies and timezones.  Hence my repeated questioning of motives.


The community is not dumb to see through the blocking of pre policy discussions to finalise on the concerns/motions to be tabled for the policy making jointly by the community. 



The problem is you're trying to push the debate past the "why" and into the "what and how" without people being able to decide if change is necessary or warranted.


I've seen no evidence that there is any support for Naresh's suggestions aside from the cadre of people from India who are aggrieved.   This calls into question for modifying more than just proxy timing.


Especially given that the suggestions for change appear to be from people who desire to change the rules to suit their own ends and not to improve the actual outcome for all of APNIC and it's members.


As far as I can see the two things that need to be done are:


1) Define a single time with respect to UTC for all future elections that proxies must be assigned by.


My suggestion would be UTC+12 which, I think, should be 17.00 at the most westward point of the APNIC region.  (ie. the end of the usual business day).  This is quite arbitrary but as long as everyone knows and it's on the APNIC webpage it won't be an issue in future.   This means that if someone hears "17.00" then they will get their proxies in on time no matter where they are.


2) That scrutineers are nominated ahead of time so that any issues with their impartiality are clearly defined


Preferably the day before the election at least so that any issues such as last week are sorted out beforehand without issue.


Aside from that, I remain unconvinced that the change is necessary.


Matthew Moyle-Croft

(again, speaking for himself)

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>