My opinion of the three points already raised for discussion. I'd like
to see further explanation before forming an opinion of Rajesh's
suggested fourth point.
On 6/8/2010 10:45 PM, Rajesh Chharia wrote:
> Dear All,
> While the process is being followed to submit the subject matter for
> APNIC’s consideration, it’s important to request community to review the
> trailing mails which are self explanatory over the debate so far.
> I wish to add that there is also a strong need to have *GAC community
> within APNIC* and that should be considered as the* fourth point*,
> earlier 3 points were as under:
> 1. “an Independent body within the community to be responsible for EC
Disagree. The one recent incident does not call for this, only for more
common sense on the part of the scrutineers "volunteering" for the role.
> 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.
> 3. “specified terms for ECs”
Agree. I feel that three consecutive terms is enough.
> Rajesh Chharia
apnic-talk mailing list