[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
From: David Conrad
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:09:50 -0800
[Apologies, this mail got misrouted into my spam box so I didn't see it before I sent my previous email]

On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:27 PM, Desi Valli wrote:
I can’t call this as an evidence but could be considered as per the law of interpretation.

I'm unfamiliar with this law.

We all went through what happened on the last day, during vote count. As a first timer in APNIC conferences, following are some of the observations that make me to interpret that the intentions of ECs are not neutral, always.

By definition, the members of the EC cannot be neutral. They are elected presumably because they have particular views that correspond to how a majority of those holding votes view things.

1.        Elections are conducted by ECs instead of an Election commission or someone who is not part of current responsibilities.

I gather things have changed somewhat significantly since I last observed an APNIC election.

2.        Voting is again managed by the secretariat not by a any neutral body.

I'm unclear what you mean by "managed".  The question of neutrality is relevant when it comes to how the vote is counted and certified.  Was the secretariat involved in counting the vote or certifying the results?

3.        The scrutinizers are not selected before the start of election, but only at the time of counting.

As mentioned in a previous note, this reduces the observers are less susceptible to being influenced. 

4.        There is NO maximum number of years defined to be an EC, it looked as if the Asian Internet community has a huge shortage of eminent and qualified people.

Or, it could mean that the membership is happy with the performance of those EC members.

5.        THE organisation that is responsible to make Internet work, keeps a LOOPHOLE open in the voting process in the name of proxy voting, that helps the contestants to bargain between, and manipulate the outcome.

Proxy voting is quite common and its absence would not imply bargaining does not occur.  I'm unclear why you consider it a loophole.

·         (I’m from India which is the largest democratic in the world, with more than 750 million eligible voters, conducts the entire election process through electronic voting systems, as the people believe that the ballet system has loopholes for contestants to manipulate the outcome – India is still a developing country)

And I'm from a "developed" country that is famously unable to count votes correctly and which has been unable to come up with a trustworthy electronic voting system.  Your point?  :-)

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.

On the specific incident:

Not being at the APNIC meeting, I'm unaware of the incident you're speaking of.  Just seeing your side of the situation, it does sound like things were some issues.  I guess the question is whether or not those issues were resolved in a sufficiently open, transparent, and accountable way to ensure the community retains trust in the outcome.  I gather from your perspective, the answer is "no".


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