On 11/03/2010, at 1:58 AM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:
I agree with your suggestions and shall be the responsibility of the independent electoral body constituted at the time of announcement of election.
Please don't twist my words.
Where's your actual proposal for "an independent electoral body"? You seem to have assumed acceptance where there is none. Certainly not from me.
This is APNIC, not a country. The costs and complexity don't appear to give a useful outcome.
What is your opinion about the following:
1. Equal voting rights to each member of APNIC
As before I think the current resource based arrangement is fine. 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.
I don't see the motivation. Especially when there doesn't appear to be a problem at the moment.. Fixed terms have the problem that they remove often good people for an arbitrary reason.
Again, given that you and others are unhappy about the outcome of a just performed election where your candidate didn't get elected I feel that your motivation for changing the system immediately after is suspect. I would suggest that you concentrate on not "changing the system" but actually focusing on electing a candidate next time. Ensuring your proxies are in and that your candidate is well known. Just having them well known in India is not a reason for others to vote for them. This is a multinational organisation that requires more from the candidates.
A number of people who got elected for instance are people that I've met, talked to and corresponded with - all from different countries from my own.
I'm also disappointed that you have, despite demanding change, actually offered no concrete changes other than one line suggestions.
All of this I've said before but we're still going in circles.
(Speaking for himself)