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
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
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.
Lalit Mathur, an ISP of India and member
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.
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?)
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
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.
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 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.
(again, speaking for himself)