I appreciate &
respect view points. I am also open for further personal attacks.
Debates are for allowing
people to express openly and referring their view points as hyperbola/impure
motivation is not at all discouraging for me atleast. Same is the situation
when one tries to name the discussions as a charge of corruptions etc.
Changes don’t come
Please join the debate
for three areas of concern:
The Electoral Body to conduct elections,
Equal voting strength to each member &
Specified terms for the elected Representative
I am sure, sooner or
later, we wud debate above said three areas with dignity.
Regards and best wishes
My apologies for my continual
bluntness, I understand that this isn't culturally normal for a lot of APNIC
countries, but my feeling is that if we don't actually convey what we mean we
will never actually get to the bottom of the issue.
We're going in circles.
References to the Olympics and ENRON aren't helping much.
If you want change then I
suggest you outline precisely the changes to the rules you want and stop
talking in hyperbola.
ie. write a set of
rules you'd expect people to vote on.
At the moment I feel that
your reasons for wanting change have an impure motivation because of the
constant hyperbola. Currently you're wanting change but won't say
precisely the rules you want and you keep implicitly implying that good people
are corrupt. None of these are helping other members share your desire
One of the other reasons that
I feel your motives aren't pure is that you and others from India appear to be
the ones who are wishing change but it was the candidate and scrutineer from
India who had the connection which caused the issue last Friday.
Please post a set of rules
you think we should change to so that we can debate and analyse them rather
than talking in Hyperbola.
(Speaking, as always, for
On 10/03/2010, at 2:29 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Three core values of the Olympic Movement
which demonstrate how Olympism can be expressed in our lives. These values of
Excellence, Friendship and Respect are not only about winning but also about
particpating. It’s about mutual understanding among people from all over
the world. It’s about respect for rules and regulations.
I am not going to be divertedJ. I am here to
particpate in the debate for Right Rules and Regulations and therefore invites
you all for the following:
1. Is it wrong to have electoral body for
conducting the elections?
2. Is it wrong to have voting pattern for EC as
it is for NRO NC election?
3. Is it wrong to have fresh blood/thought on
PS: I wud keep respecting you for your view
I think you're deliberately
not responding to people's questions.
There isn't a problem here
except that your candidate didn't get elected and you and your compatriots feel
I still assert that you are
trying to (and the post below confirms it for me) dress this up as a conspiracy
against some nations within APNIC. Which, given India is one of the 9
nations to have had representation on the EC, is hilarious.
You ARE actually asserting
corruption and underhandness where there is none. But you won't even
admit to that.
Given this thread and what
has been alleged about the process of the election I think it's good the way
the election ended up.
On 10/03/2010, at 1:54 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
Push to the whistle blewers is nothing new. I
don’t find any such references made by you in my response. We are
debating the following:
1. Electoral body for the elections
The example of Enron is in response to the
brand example of Walmart.-Big brands and what we want to be as a brand.
Have you considered that it
maybe that the members of APNIC are voting for those who they think will serve
them best as members of the EC rather than a major conspiracy?
Maybe rather than complaining
about the process the discussion needs to turn towards the candidates
themselves and why people didn't vote for them? Did they make an effort
to explain their skills, experience and credentials to the members?
Are they claiming that in fact the people elected are not suitable?
Have you considered that by
writing what you did below you're effectively implying that the EC is corrupt?
Have you got some evidence to back this fairly serious claim?
Really, this is a farce -
this isn't about the EC voting this is about people unhappy they weren't
elected and are trying to justify that by blaming other people. I think
some apologies to the EC are in order for trying to assert that they are
On 10/03/2010, at 1:33 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
The big brand was even ENRON-lop sided
culture/norms give lop sided results. Push to the whistle blewers is nothing
new, my reference to OLYMPICS is in the context of RESPECT.
1. I have explained Electoral College/body in my
2. Yes EC members are to represent themselves but
why don’t we research that how come with 30 members support few get
elected whereas despite 60 members support one is not elected. Kindly refer the
3. We have started a debate, policy wud follow.
My ENRON example shall clarify that it’s
better to correct things on time than to wait for enron. I have not referred to
ITU this time. J
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:11 PM,
Naresh Ajwani wrote:
I don’t think there is any challenge
over the need of an electoral college for conducting the elections.
I suppose it depends on what
you mean by "electoral college".
1. When we have proportionate voting strengths to
the size of our members why can’t we have proportionate representation?
Because, as has been pointed
out, the EC members (are supposed to) represent themselves, not their
organization, their country, their language, etc. If you believe they are
not representing themselves and are, instead, representing some specific
subset, then that would suggest the need of a recall, not necessarily of
world’s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics.
I thought the world's biggest
brand was Walmart.
Mind, If we can have NRO NC election on single vote per member basis, why
can’t we have the same for the EC election?
As I understand it, NRO NC
members each represent their RIR.
1. When there is a fixed term for the ICANN
Director, why can’t we have the fixed term for the EC in APNIC?
I would imagine if the APNIC
community agrees this is a good thing, you can. However, it isn't clear
to me what problem you're solving with term limits and there are definitely
non-trivial implications of term limits.
Have you submitted a policy
proposal to impose term limits?
call is ours, should we have the similar brand value of Olympics or allow the
organisations like ITU to puncture us forever because of a few ?
I'm not sure why you're
attempting to bring the ITU into this discussion. If there are issues
with the structure of APNIC, those should be addressed directly and discussion
on solutions should be examined for their merits and costs rather than raising
the spectre of an external party.
apnic-talk mailing list