[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Election Reforms

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election Reforms
From: "Naresh"
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:38:22 +0530
Dear Randy,

In APNIC, this some amount of proportionality is 1:64. Please visualize the
impact of proportionate voting by 20 members over thousands. Similarly, the
other two points may also be seen with a similar concern.

Regards

Naresh Ajwani

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Whitney
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 10:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Election Reforms

On 6/9/2010 11:15 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> On 9 Jun 2010, at 16:11, Randy Whitney wrote:
>
>>> 2. "no proportionate voting"
>> Disagree. I would further assert that Naresh is incorrect in his
>> understanding of voting in the other RIRs. Within the RIPE community for
>> example, many companies represented in voting have multiple votes, some
>> more than 20. This means that of the five RIRs, _THREE_ have what is
>> being refer to as "proportionate voting". That represents the majority.
>
> Hi,
>
> Only if they operate multiple registries/NCC memberships. e.g.
> different business units (MyCompany UK, MyCompany FR, etc.) may operate
> different LIRs, they pay their own sums, they get their own vote. Each
> LIR though has a single vote.
>
> A single organisation with multiple memberships is very much the
> exception, not the rule.
>
> Sticking my neck out here as a casual observer, hope this is not too
> rude - but I think the one member, one vote system is fairest.
>
> Andy

Hello Andy:

Your clarification regarding how Companies obtain multiple votes through 
RIPE doesn't really change my point, though. Larger companies organized 
around national or other business-unit boundaries generally have 
justifiable reasons to maintain separate LIRs and as a result end up 
controlling a larger number of votes. As a result those companies can 
better protect their national and regional interests.

I would assert that having some amount of proportionality actually helps 
keep the playing field level and fair. The analogy often used to 
describe a purely democratic system is "three wolves and one sheep 
deciding on what's for dinner". Eliminating the size element completely 
means that a much larger sheep cannot use its size to defend itself 
against three tiny wolves.

Best Regards,
Randy Whitney



_______________________________________________
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>