[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [apnic-talk] Election Reforms

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Election Reforms
From: Randy Whitney
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:11:56 -0400
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
> elections”

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

Best Regards,
Randy Whitney

apnic-talk mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>