[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51
From: Rajesh Chharia
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:34:17 +0530
Dear MM,
 
After going through the discussion happening on APNIC TALK, I thought now to say some thing.......Your apology to Naresh is not sufficient as without knowing about the issues of the last day, you have accused many other members also over the same.
 
Naresh won’t get disturbed by your mails, he is above all such petty accusations but you definitely owe us an apology.
 
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:
 
As the 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). When the 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.
 
Instead of 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.
 
Please refer to the mails of Naresh who started with the background and summarised on three areas of concern. Also, be assured that guys like Naresh are determined lot and wont divert from the cause-Election reforms….post way forward debate, we wud propose policy also but we wud keep debating first to conclude the way forward. We won’t dictate the motion like what happened on the last day…the motion could have been on Timeline and loss of voting right to the members but it didn’t happen that way.
 
The 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 community. But yes, I appreciate your own acknowledgement to uncultured behaviour and expect you to be bold enough to apologise to the community for pushing and diverting the good debate to the chaotic situation.

Regards
Rajesh Chharia
+9198110 38188



Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:03:12 +1030
From: Matthew Moyle-Croft <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections
To: Naresh Ajwani <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Naresh,
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 for change.

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.

Regards,
Matthew
(Speaking, as always, for myself)

On 10/03/2010, at 2:29 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:

Dear Matthew,

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 diverted:). 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 regular basis?

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani

PS: I wud keep respecting you for your view points. :)


From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 10 March 2010 09:01
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: David Conrad; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Hi Naresh,

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 slighted.

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.

MMC

On 10/03/2010, at 1:54 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:


Dear Matthew,

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
2.     Voting Strength
3.     Term for EC

The example of Enron is in response to the brand example of Walmart.-Big brands and what we want to be as a brand.


Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani

From: Matthew Moyle-Croft [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 10 March 2010 08:48
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: David Conrad; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Naresh,

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 corrupt.

MMC
Speaking for himself




On 10/03/2010, at 1:33 PM, Naresh Ajwani wrote:



Dear David,

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 last mail.
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 contexts.
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. :)

Regards and best wishes,

Naresh Ajwani





From: David Conrad [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 10 March 2010 03:04
To: Naresh Ajwani
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Elections

Naresh,

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 restructuring representation.




Today world?s biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics.

I thought the world's biggest brand was Walmart.




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?

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?




The 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.

Regards,
-drc

<ATT00001..txt>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/attachments/20100310/52e9e91b/attachment.html

------------------------------

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


End of apnic-talk Digest, Vol 71, Issue 51
******************************************

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