Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs
Nomination committees of any sort, only create controversies within RIRs.
In ARIN, there have been multiple controversies where qualified candidates weren't included in the voting process, thereby causing community backlash.
In AFRINIC, the so-called nomination committee that disqualified everyone is the very reason the whole election was injuncted and is currently pending a court order to be organized and run.
A background info search and publication of such search info together in which relation with candidacy is reasonable, a clear guideline of what info would be considered relevant to the relevant position should be established, and a fine balance must be struck between respecting a candidates' privacy and the voter's rights to relevant information.
In that case, anyone should be able to be a candidate, provided full information has been given to the voters. And even if the voters decide to vote for a person with a criminal record, as long as all voters are well informed and decide that person deserves a second chance, then we must respect this bottom-up and democratic process.
In most democratic states, anyone can run for head of the state without a nomination committee hand pick them in a dark room, and I don't think any position here would be more important than an actual President of the states, so why do we want to prevent people from running and contesting?
Give the voters all the information they need and let them decide for themselves who they want as their leaders. Anything other than that will lead to either community backlash or court proceedings; both of which Afrinic is currently experiencing right now. And what happened in ARIN multiple times now.
I know the RIRs recently don’t like the fact that they are private companies and subject to rule of law, but until all of them become intergovernmental bodies with attached immunity they wanted in their letter to the government, the common law still applies to them.
Hence, the solution to this problem is simple:
1. Give the voters complete information
2. Anyone can be a candidate and let the voters decide.
3. We shouldn’t only let a small group of individuals in a dark room decide who the voters can vote on.
There is no need for NRC, all we need is to agree on what personal information is relevant for each position, so anyone who wants to participate can publish on their own and be verified by the Secretariat.
And let voters decide.
With regards.
Lu
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 08:08, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Lu, though most of your comments are not related to the content of the proposal but I'm happy to respond.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:00, Lu Heng h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Nomination committees of any sort, only create controversies within RIRs.
That's your opinion and you are entitled to have one, so let's just leave it there.
In ARIN, there have been multiple controversies where qualified candidates weren't included in the voting process, thereby causing community backlash.
NRC's role and responsibilities are different, please review the document again.
In AFRINIC, the so-called nomination committee that disqualified everyone is the very reason the whole election was injuncted and is currently pending a court order to be organized and run.
can't comment on a case pending court order but again review the role and responsibility of NRC again.
A background info search and publication of such search info together in which relation with candidacy is reasonable, a clear guideline of what info would be considered relevant to the relevant position should be established, and a fine balance must be struck between respecting a candidates' privacy and the voter's rights to relevant information.
Glad to know that you do support publication of relevant information of candidates. Once again if you read the role and responsibility of the NRC then it will help you understand more.
In that case, anyone should be able to be a candidate, provided full information has been given to the voters. And even if the voters decide to vote for a person with a criminal record, as long as all voters are well informed and decide that person deserves a second chance, then we must respect this bottom-up and democratic process.
Help me understand, do you support a committee (in this case NRC) which is elected by the community in a most transparent manner, which is the whole idea of bottom-up approach?
In most democratic states, anyone can run for head of the state without a nomination committee hand pick them in a dark room, and I don't think any position here would be more important than an actual President of the states, so why do we want to prevent people from running and contesting?
Nope, that's not that case in many democratic states. People don't actually vote for the head of state but we are not discussing the presidential and the parliamentary system here and lets not add Monarchy in the mix. Anyways, I love this topic but it's not relevant for this discussion.
Give the voters all the information they need and let them decide for themselves who they want as their leaders. Anything other than that will lead to either community backlash or court proceedings; both of which Afrinic is currently experiencing right now. And what happened in ARIN multiple times now.
Again, I'm not going to comment on what is happening in AFRINIC but if you once again read the role and responsibilities of NRC then it will help you understand more.
I know the RIRs recently don’t like the fact that they are private companies and subject to rule of law, but until all of them become intergovernmental bodies with attached immunity they wanted in their letter to the government, the common law still applies to them.
APNIC Pty Ltd is an Australian Private Company and I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say "become intergovernmental bodies" because thats not what APNIC is and I know that because I'm a member and the invoice I get is from a private company.
Hence, the solution to this problem is simple:
Give the voters complete information
Anyone can be a candidate and let the voters decide.
We shouldn’t only let a small group of individuals in a dark room decide who the voters can vote on.
There is no need for NRC, all we need is to agree on what personal information is relevant for each position, so anyone who wants to participate can publish on their own and be verified by the Secretariat.
Again, for the last time I would suggest reading the document please.
And let voters decide.
Voters will decide that ultimately because we are not changing the SIG guidelines OR APNIC bylaws so literally no one is taking that voting rights away . But thanks for highlighting that.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
With regards.
Lu
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 08:08, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures. This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages. We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same position of AFRINIC.
On 25-Aug-2022, at 05:38, aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat... https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Hi Gaurav, Thanks for your comments
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal gaurav.kansal@nic.in wrote:
We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures.
NRC is for review of all elected community nominations. For this particular suggestion, you have to change SIG guidelines, NRO-NC election procedure and also the APNIC bylaws. This change is out of the scope of NRC but your point is taken and NRC can publish the number of years a candidate has already served on a particular seat.
This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages.
If you read the document then you will understand how we are supporting at least the geographical diversity in the NRC. While I do support your point of geographical diversity, to make it clear Diversity is not about geography only and we have to make APNIC more inclusive at every level.
from geographical pov EC - 7 members representing 7 different economies NRO NC - 3 members 3 different economies SIG - Routing Security - 3 members 3 economies SIG - Cooperation - 2 members 2 economies SIG - NIR - 2 members 2 economies SIG - Policy - 3 members 3 economies
Out of these 20 elected members there are at least 15 different economies represented here out of 56 economies of APNIC service region.
We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same
position of AFRINIC.
Any further suggestions to improve the NRC?
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On 25-Aug-2022, at 05:38, aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
On 25-Aug-2022, at 12:52, aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gaurav, Thanks for your comments
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal <gaurav.kansal@nic.in mailto:gaurav.kansal@nic.in> wrote: We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures.
NRC is for review of all elected community nominations. For this particular suggestion, you have to change SIG guidelines, NRO-NC election procedure and also the APNIC bylaws. This change is out of the scope of NRC but your point is taken and NRC can publish the number of years a candidate has already served on a particular seat.
For NomCom or NRC, or whatever for this proposal is, don’t it need the same approvals, which are required for bringing the reforms in the current election processes ? As per the timeline/stages section, it look like this document/proposal is pushed from the top to the bottom and set timelines are very stringent. Don’t it be better if we have the election and voting rights reforms before this NRC/NomCom ? Also, what’s the general trend in APNIC w.r.t. proposals ? Is it top-down approach or bottom-up approach, as this proposal is first reviewed by the top and then shared with the community, so is it a general trend in APNIC ? I am considering that APNIC doesn’t think that elected members or the APNIC leaders are the only wise members in this region.
This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages.
If you read the document then you will understand how we are supporting at least the geographical diversity in the NRC. While I do support your point of geographical diversity, to make it clear Diversity is not about geography only and we have to make APNIC more inclusive at every level.
from geographical pov EC - 7 members representing 7 different economies NRO NC - 3 members 3 different economies SIG - Routing Security - 3 members 3 economies SIG - Cooperation - 2 members 2 economies SIG - NIR - 2 members 2 economies SIG - Policy - 3 members 3 economies
Out of these 20 elected members there are at least 15 different economies represented here out of 56 economies of APNIC service region.
We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same position of AFRINIC.
Any further suggestions to improve the NRC?
In one of the discussions, I proposed for building the appropriate resilience at various levels of the core institutions of APNIC in order to prevent any major disruptions to the operations of APNIC. To start with we can explore the feasibility of setting up a regional office of APNIC in any other member country and distribute some of the resources of APNIC across different geographies, So that any legal/regulatory actions of one host country doesn't bring the operations of APNIC to a standstill.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get views of APNIC on this.
Thanks, Gaurav Kansal
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On 25-Aug-2022, at 05:38, aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat... https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 15:45, Gaurav Kansal gaurav.kansal@nic.in wrote:
On 25-Aug-2022, at 12:52, aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gaurav, Thanks for your comments
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal gaurav.kansal@nic.in wrote:
We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures.
NRC is for review of all elected community nominations. For this particular suggestion, you have to change SIG guidelines, NRO-NC election procedure and also the APNIC bylaws. This change is out of the scope of NRC but your point is taken and NRC can publish the number of years a candidate has already served on a particular seat.
For NomCom or NRC, or whatever for this proposal is, don’t it need the same approvals, which are required for bringing the reforms in the current election processes ? As per the timeline/stages section, it look like this document/proposal is pushed from the top to the bottom and set timelines are very stringent. Don’t it be better if we have the election and voting rights reforms before this NRC/NomCom ?
As I mentioned in my previous comments, if you want to change voting mechanism ("voting rights" doesn't make sense in this discussion) then there are 3 separate forums for that, SIG guidelines can be changed at SIGs, NRO-NC election procedure require a separate change proposal and for EC you need to change APNIC bylaws. If you think that has to be done in parallel then I would suggest you organise a BoF in the upcoming APNIC54 and share it with community members and if there is a consensus from the community then a working group can be formed to make that happen. Otherwise you can come up with a proposal and share it with all SIGs and ask for their opinion.
Also, what’s the general trend in APNIC w.r.t. proposals ? Is it top-down
approach or bottom-up approach, as this proposal is first reviewed by the top and then shared with the community, so is it a general trend in APNIC ? I am considering that APNIC doesn’t think that elected members or the APNIC leaders are the only wise members in this region.
On your point about top-down approach, I'm not sure what made you think like that? If it was a top-down process then you would have heard about the formation of NRC by now with TOR set in stone whereas right now we are talking about a proposal, an idea which some of the community members (including me) have been discussing for last few years and finally got the chance (thanks to lockdowns) to put this into wordings, primary discussion was with all the chairs/co-chairs of SIGs, NRO-NC, IRC, APIX and APNOG members - this is what we call elected leadership group, a big enough group of community representatives who are active and willing to provide feedback. This document is still a proposal and no decision has been made yet. Set timelines - yeah because we have a BoF at APNIC54 so its better to collect as much opinion/comments from the mailing list so we can address it before the BoF and have a constructive discussion there. I hope that helps clarify your misconception of top-down approach.
This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able to achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us in catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages.
If you read the document then you will understand how we are supporting at least the geographical diversity in the NRC. While I do support your point of geographical diversity, to make it clear Diversity is not about geography only and we have to make APNIC more inclusive at every level.
from geographical pov EC - 7 members representing 7 different economies NRO NC - 3 members 3 different economies SIG - Routing Security - 3 members 3 economies SIG - Cooperation - 2 members 2 economies SIG - NIR - 2 members 2 economies SIG - Policy - 3 members 3 economies
Out of these 20 elected members there are at least 15 different economies represented here out of 56 economies of APNIC service region.
We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same
position of AFRINIC.
Any further suggestions to improve the NRC?
In one of the discussions, I proposed for building the appropriate resilience at various levels of the core institutions of APNIC in order to prevent any major disruptions to the operations of APNIC. To start with we can explore the feasibility of setting up a regional office of APNIC in any other member country and distribute some of the resources of APNIC across different geographies, So that any legal/regulatory actions of one host country doesn't bring the operations of APNIC to a standstill.
I'm not sure what sub-regional offices will do for the resiliency of APNIC. There are 7 NIRs right now which get the resources from APNIC, do their own policy work and provide resources to their members and collect local fees but if you want to set up multiple regional Internet registries then for that you have to follow ICP-2. Anyways, this topic is mostly related to the operations of how RIR works which is out of the scope of this discussion.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get views of APNIC on this.
Thanks, Gaurav Kansal
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
Hi Aftab,
I think this is a timely discussion. Looking forward to this discussion.
Regards,
Amrita
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:38 AM Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ SIG-cooperation mailing list -- sig-cooperation@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to sig-cooperation-leave@apnic.net
It is indeed a very timely topic that I was discussing among our close groups in APNIC for a long time. I appreciate Aftab and will be with the topic.
Thanks again.
---------------------------------------------- Gazi Zehadul Kabir
Chief Strategy Officer System, Service & Integration Desk:+8809666333455 Cell:+8801730041455 Level-5, House-1, Road-1, Gulshan-1, Dhaka-1212 www.bdcom.com https://www.bdcom.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/bdcom https://www.facebook.com/bdcom https://www.instagram.com/bdcom.online.ltd https://www.youtube.com/c/BDCOMOnlineLtd
On 25 Aug, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Amrita Choudhury via SIG Routing Security sig-routingsecurity@apnic.net wrote:
Hi Aftab,
I think this is a timely discussion. Looking forward to this discussion.
Regards,
Amrita
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:38 AM Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com mailto:aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat... https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ SIG-cooperation mailing list -- sig-cooperation@apnic.net mailto:sig-cooperation@apnic.net To unsubscribe send an email to sig-cooperation-leave@apnic.net mailto:sig-cooperation-leave@apnic.net _______________________________________________ SIG Routing Security - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-routingsecurity@apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-routingsecurity-leave@apnic.net
Hello Aftab,
You can count me in !
Le 25/08/2022 à 11:08, Aftab Siddiqui a écrit :
Hi Everyone,
As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of electing members to various community elected positions.
Please review the proposal here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising a BoF https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
BoF: https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominat...
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0Q...
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs
sig-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email tosig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
Activity Summary
- 397 days inactive
- 397 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 6 participants
- 9 comments