[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

[apnic-talk] Election reforms

Subject: [apnic-talk] Election reforms
From: "Naresh"
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:24:19 +0530

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.

 

Name of RIR

Voting Strength Per Member

AfriNIC

1

RIPE NCC

1

ARIN

1

LACNIC

1 – 5

 

 

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.

 

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;

“…Section 8. TERMS OF DIRECTORS

…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.

…5. Subject to the provisions of the Transition Article of these Bylaws, no Director may serve more than three consecutive terms. For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term shall not be deemed to have served that term”

With limited terms for directors so that all stake holders feel equally engaged and due consideration is being given to regions, gender etc. to have an equal opportunity situation.

 

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.

 

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….

 

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

 

Regards,    

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:45 AM
To: 'Matthew Moyle-Croft'
Cc: 'APNIC TALK'
Subject: Election reforms-Detail

 

Dear Matthew,

 

Atleast Independent electoral body has the acceptance from other members also. Please feel free to refer to the old mails from other members.

 

You seem to have assumed acceptance where there is none.  Certainly not from me.

 

Consensus can never be 100% but please don’t keep hitting one country-it sounds racial and be careful.

 

Changing to member based in the face of IPv4 exhaustion seems to be a way of stacking the vote by encouraging people to join for no other reason than voting.

 

Wud appreciate your further elaboration to understand your view point better.

 

you have, despite demanding change, actually offered no concrete changes other than one line suggestions.

 

I have compiled my suggestions and motivation from the old mails to correct your repeatedly imposed perceptions of one liner suggestionsJ. It’s classified into three parts:

 

1.     Suggestions

2.     Thoughts from other members

3.     Motivation

                                                                                                     

I.                SUGESSTIONS:

 

“It’s about concerns which broadly are as follows:

 

1.     An Election Body shall be responsible for conducting elections -You cannot be a Judge in your own Cause”.

 

2.     Guaranteed result, because of state of origin and distribution of votes with one block based on the number of IPs procurement, is not a true democracy or bottom-up process. Sadly, the voting process reflects on the skewed understanding of democracy and shall be corrected - Internet is the leveller and not the divider; “one who can afford to procure more IPs can’t have more rights than the one who can’t”

 

3.     Specified terms so that all can get the representation in decision making of Internet policies. Internet enables/connects any part of the world; the current process is creating incumbency-fresh thoughts/approach is must for the growth of Internet.

“The proposed reforms stand for all 56 countries and my last mail-point 2 i.e Voting Pattern needs a review; please think from the Internet perspective-it fills up the divide. Let’s attempt to change and give all inclusive approach.”

 

“This transparency has to come-how voting took place, number of votes casted to all candidates....we can’t limit this information to selectd few.....”

 

New thoughts toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for the members, though they may not be an issue with the already NIR possessing members, viz., Why for so long there was a suspension of the NIR process... who were responsible for it... Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts of CIR?”

 

NIR was just one of the examples J

 

Nowhere have I said that we should change the entire election system. Please refer to my mail commenting over 3 broad areas of concern. These concerns can be vetted by any expert/specialist who wud also join the chorus.

 

1.     We need an electoral body—the existing system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause.

2.     We need a process to facilitate 48 other countries to have the representation in EC-­­-- We can’t have skewed democratic values and invite “Cartel/collusion thoughts/comments” for our systems.

3.     We need new thoughts/faces on regular basis to lead us--- Example: why not you be that new face? J

 

“All three solutions are reflecting the concerns too. J I paste one of three areas again and highlight/underline the same, for your reference:

 

We need an electoral body-the existing system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause.

 

I elaborate the same also for your convenience: If I am an EC and also be responsible for conducting/deciding on the election issues/concerns of the contestants, it isn’t appropriate. If u want me to elaborate further on the origin of the concern, it is possible but that way we wud lose our objective-“Existence”; much above all the petty concerns.

 

We shall focus on the positive side of this debate-if u think, there is no need of electoral body and the ECs shall be responsible for the same, I am okay to drop this debate at this juncture itself.”

 

So why didn’t we leave the "timeline issue for the proxy registeration" also on independent friends from other RIR? I propose to elaborate the issue further but we can't have norms/conflict of interest at our coneveniences and that’s why I have proposed the Electoral College as first area of concern. Whats wrong with this proposal; The Electoral College can have friends from other RIR but they shall not be accountable to the ECs.”

 

We don’t wait for an accident to occur to take an INSUARANCE. J

 

I don’t think there is any challenge over the need of an electoral college for conducting the elections.

 

Now let me elaborate further on other two areas of concern:

 

1.     When we have proportionate voting strengths to the size of our members why can’t we have proportionate representation? Today world’s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics.  The most respected brand in the world where just one participant from a country is lead by the mast holder in the same esteem as the one representing a continent with 1000 members.  In Olympics, the size doesn’t matter and that’s why it is more respectable than the other brands. Never 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?

 

2.     When there is a fixed term for the ICANN Director, why can’t we have the fixed term for the EC in APNIC?”

 

“I am here to particpate in the debate for Right Rules and Regulations and therefore invite 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 regular basis?”

 

1.     Once we agree the way-forward on the election reforms, be assured that the proposed policy would follow.

2.     The proportional representation because of wealth i.e. “more IP addresses mean more voting strength” is what I am proposing to correct,

3.     The Formats of debate varies and we shall allow the same J

 

II. Thoughts from other members:

 

“- change the structure of the EC?

                    - have a AC like ARIN to deal with policy?

                    - have the responsibility of the EC reduced to just matters of the secretariat?

                    - have a nominations/election committee with independent bodies?”

 

“More seriously, the election system used by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the Internet was much less deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning to be used.  I'm sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue to evolve.  Moving towards full electronic voting might make sense now that entire countries aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.

 

 

 

III.             MOTIVATION DETAILING:

 

“If we want to be an enlightened organisation, we shall not hesitate in surfacing issues/concerns. Yours, that matter, everybody's help in this regard wud be highly appreciated”

 

“In my opinion, “Internet is the leveller” but the table and the process of Elections are distinctively dividing the region- I may be wrong in assuming the same but really dont know that how Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many such countries can get the representation in current EC structure.

 

I also don’t know that how can we check a situation like that as "Security Council" if 4 EC members from 3 countries of the same belt i.e. “majority” decides to block, say for example some country wants to have NIR.”

 

 

Before any reforms are undertaken, one needs to understand the past scenario and the composition of EC (given below) which can be a good starting point:

 

Year

EC1

EC2

EC4

EC5

EC3

EC6

EC7

EC8

1998

Toru Takahashi ,
Japan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

Xing Li,
China

Srisakdi Charmonman,
Thailand

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

 

1999

Toru Takahashi ,
Japan

Oh Kwang Sok,
Korea

Xing Li,
China

Tommi Chen,
Malaysia

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

 

2000

Kazunori Konishi,
Japan

Oh Kwang Sok,
Korea

Xing Li,
China

Tommi Chen,
Malaysia

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

 

2001

MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan

Byung-Kyu Kim,
 Korea

Xing Li,
China

Qian Hualin,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

 

2002

MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan

Byung-Kyu Kim,
 Korea

Xing Li,
China

Qian Hualin,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

 

2003

MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan

Yong Wan Ju,
Korea

Qian Hualin,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Geoff Huston,
Australia

 

2004

MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan

Yong Wan Ju,
Korea

Qian Hualin,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Vinh Ngo,
Australia

 

2005

MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan

Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
Korea

Qian Hualin,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Vinh Ngo,
Australia

 

2006

MAEMURA Akinori ,
Japan

Moo-Ho Billy Cheon,
Korea

Qian Hualin,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Vinh Ngo,
Australia

 

2007

MAEMURA Akinori ,
 Japan

Kusumba Sridhar,
India

Wei Mao,
China

Vinh Ngo,
Australia

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Ming-Cheng Liang,
Taiwan

Paul Wilson,
Australia

2008

MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan

Kusumba Sridhar,
India

Wei Mao,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

Ming-Cheng Liang,
Taiwan

Paul Wilson,
Australia

2009

MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan

Hyun-Joon Kwon,
Korea

Jian Zhang,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

James Spenceley,
Australia

Paul Wilson,
Australia

2010

MAEMURA Akinori,
Japan

Hyun-Joon Kwon,
Korea

Jian Zhang,
China

Ma Yan,
China

Che-Hoo Cheng,
Hong Kong

Kuo-Wei Wu,
Taiwan

James Spenceley,
Australia

Paul Wilson,
Australia

 

  

The table is obvious on many unspoken but visibly glaring aspects which, coupled with certain important excerpts of the by-laws reproduced below, will help in understanding the areas of concern as well as the way forward for the esteemed APNIC-TALK group: 

 

The Executive Council:

·       .....the Executive Council shall be composed of seven members elected at AGMs in accordance with the provisions of by-laws.

·      Executive Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in their personal capacity and shall act in the best interests of the APNIC membership and not the Member organisation to which that individual belongs. Only one individual per Member organisation may be elected to sit on the Executive Council.

 

Quorum

·       A meeting of the Executive Council is duly constituted for all purposes if at the commencement of the meeting there are present in person not less than one half of the total number of Council members or their duly authorised representatives.

 

EC Confidentiality             

  

·       All business undertaken by the EC is confidential to the EC.

·       All EC members are requested to execute a formal non-disclosure undertaking with APNIC

·       EC members should respect this confidentiality by:

 

          –  not recording EC meetings

          –  not inviting other members to participate in, or listen into EC meetings without the prior permission    

               of the Chair of the EC

          –  not circulating EC mail messages to any third party without the express permission of the Chair

             of the EC–not divulging any membership information of which they are aware as an EC member.

 

 

“My motivation is my APNIC. Our APNIC”

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:51 AM
To: 'David Conrad'; 'Desi Valli'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Thanks David, I wud incorporate your following suggestion in our proposal for election reforms:

 

 

“More seriously, the election system used by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the Internet was much less deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning to be used.  I'm sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue to evolve.  Moving towards full electronic voting might make sense now that entire countries aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.

 

 

Dear Desi,

 

Any other important point you want to make please?

 

Regards

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

 

From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:59 PM
To: 'Matthew Moyle-Croft'; 'APNIC TALK'
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51

 

Matthew Moyle wrote:

 

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

 

 

Dear Mathew,

 

I agree with your suggestions and shall be the responsibility of the independent electoral body constituted at the time of announcement of election.

 

What is your opinion about the following:

 

1.     Equal voting rights to each member of APNIC

2.     Specified terms

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:12 AM
To: '
山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Thank you very much, we all are on the same page

 

Regards

 

From: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 22:34
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Dear Naresh

 

OK, now I understand that you are trying to resolve what we have met in last AMM by first proposal, thx.

I also think it's worth to discuss.

 

However, second and third are not so clear problem statements at least for me, sorry.


Rgs,

Masato


On 2010/03/09, at 23:00, "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Yamanishi San,

 

All three solutions are reflecting the concerns too. J I paste one of three areas again and highlight/underline the same, for your reference:

 

We need an electoral body-the existing system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause.

 

I elaborate the same also for your convenience: If I am an EC and also be responsible for conducting/deciding on the election issues/concerns of the contestants, it isn’t appropriate. If u want me to elaborate further on the origin of the concern, it is possible but that way we wud lose our objective-“Existence”; much above all the petty concerns.

 

We shall focus on the positive side of this debate-if u think, there is no need of electoral body and the ECs shall be responsible for the same, I am okay to drop this debate at this juncture itself.

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

 

From: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 18:52
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Dear Naresh,

 

Belows are not concerns, they are solutions.

Nobody can not judge whether proposed solution is appropreate or not

without understanding underlying concerns and issues.

I want to avoid such situation, and I believe you too.

 

What is your other concern in addition to NIR delay

and the ambiguity of requirements for scrutineers in by-law

which we have met in last AMM?

Rgs,

Masato


On 2010/03/09, at 21:40, "Naresh Ajwani" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Yamanishi San,

 

NIR was just one of the examples J

 

Nowhere have I said that we should change the entire election system. Please refer to my mail commenting over 3 broad areas of concern. These concerns can be vetted by any expert/specialist who wud also join the chorus.

 

1.     We need an electoral body窶杯he existing system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause.

2.     We need a process to facilitate 48 other countries to have the representation in EC-ツュツュ-- We can窶冲 have skewed democratic values and invite 窶廚artel/collusion thoughts/comments窶・for our systems.

3.     We need new thoughts/faces on regular basis to lead us--- Example: why not you be that new face? J 

 

At the cost of being repetitive, it窶冱 about the existence, please.

 

Regards and best wishes,

 

Naresh Ajwani 

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 17:38
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Dear Naresh,

 

Even though you may have a concern for the delay of NIR process,

I still feel some kind of logical leap between it and changing the whole of election system

(or changing everything in APNIC). Isn't there any other solution?

 

Rgs,

Masato YAMANISHI

 


From: Naresh Ajwani [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:46 PM
To:
螻ア隘ソ縲豁」莠コ(繝阪ャ繝医Ρ繝シ繧ッ譛ャ驛ィ); [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

Good foundation gives good results. J

 

What is right today may not be right tomorrow like what was right yesterday is not right today-we have to keep evolving our process to keep pace with the changing world.

 

New thoughts toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for the members-this may not be an issue with already NIR possessing members, Why for so long there was a suspension of NIR process...who were responsible for it. Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts of CIR?

 

Dear Yamanishi San, Hope it addresses your query. We are more concerned on ITU窶冱 approach than any individual窶冱 role. We shall reform before anyone points them out and challenges our EXISTENCE.

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 09 March 2010 13:48
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Dear Naresh and all,

 

It seems that your concern (and recent discussions) are focused on the composition

of EC and the election system. However, IMHO, the composition is just the surface

and the election system is just a procedure.

Most important point for all stakeholder is the output of EC and each EC member's

contribution for it, I believe.

 

What is your concerns from this point?

 

Rgs,

Masato YAMANISHI

 


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Naresh Ajwani
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:02 PM
To: 'Aftab Siddiqui'; 'Matthew Moyle-Croft'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

This transparency has to come-how voting took place, number of votes casted to all candidates....we can窶冲 limit this information to selectd few.....Shall we move to way forward or still more discussions are required on the concerns?

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Naresh Ajwani

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aftab Siddiqui
Sent: 09 March 2010 11:05
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

 

Hello Mathew,

In my opinion the problem is not with very "Small Voting Rights" but the problem is how many members from these economies actually cast their vote. Can any one from APNIC share these stats?

 

Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui



On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <[email protected]> wrote:

 

On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:





Dear all,

How about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who have never had a member elected and cannot do so in the foreseeable future with the same regulations.

 

There's ~56 countries which are in the APNIC RIR "zone".  I count 9 (Japan, Australia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand) that have had members from their countries elected to the board.

 

 

The seat could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus. 

 

One thing missing from the table of WHO got elected is who has run for election.   Of the nations you mention above have any of them attempted to gain a position on the EC and been unable?  If they were elected to the EC through a change of policy what would you assert the difference would be as far as APNIC is run and resources allocated?   Especially as my understanding that the policies behind resource allocation etc are set by members voting by show of hands at the meetings not by the EC in private.   

 

There seems to be a number of people pushing the idea that somehow some nations are favoured over others at APNIC and that somehow the nations with smaller voting rights are "missing out".   Is this really the case?

 

Is it a language issue or a cultural issue?   Is the issue that some people assume it's harder for them than others or that it's harder because they don't do it that often?   The company I work for does quite a bit of work to do our allocations  especially now we have to justify some historic space.  

 

Is the actual issue education and maybe some help/mentoring from others?  eg.  maybe some exchange of ideas between members in different parts of the region might actually help those who don't interact with APNIC as often for allocation get some help from those who do or have less cultural/language issues?   

 

Regards,

Matthew   

-- 
Matthew Moyle-Croft

Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs

Internode /Agile

Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
Email: [email protected]    Web: http://www.on.net
Direct: +61-8-8228-2909      Mobile: +61-419-900-366
Reception: +61-8-8228-2999        Fax: +61-8-8235-6909

 


_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk

 

 

_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>