Dear
All, Before
proposing the policy, I had promised to explore the voting process being
followed across all other 4 RIRs and accordingly had researched into this
aspect. The analysis is being forwarded herewith so that one can refer to
the same and it may help in reaching conclusions.
No
RIR has proportionate voting strength but for LACNIC and there also the magnitude
is not like that at APNIC (1-65 per member). All these RIRs realize that
proportionate voting strength is against equality which is the basic essence of
internet. Would reiterate here that Internet is the leveler and not the
divider. Yes, instead we should welcome/explore the proportionate
representation. It is very important for engaging stakeholders from all fronts
so that every APNIC member, having different understanding/challenges, is given
the due consideration. Proposed
Election reform point No. 3 regarding the ‘Term duration’ is actually connected
to abovesaid point 2 only because if we have to engage more stakeholders, we
have to limit the terms. Forwarding the gist of the by-laws being
followed at ICANN; “…Section 8. TERMS OF DIRECTORS …3. At least one
month before the commencement of each annual meeting, the Nominating Committee
shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its selection of Directors
for seats with terms beginning at the conclusion of the annual meeting. …5. Subject to the provisions of the
Transition Article of these Bylaws, no Director may serve more than three
consecutive terms. For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy
in a term shall not be deemed to have served that term” With
limited terms for directors so that all stake holders feel equally engaged and
due consideration is being given to regions, gender etc. to have an equal
opportunity situation. Undoubtedly,
the methods and processes being followed at APNIC are satisfactory but the contention
is that one has to not only act fair but also be fair in appearance and our
maturity lies in giving chance to others than continuing for decades together. We
can certainly further debate but shall keep in mind the highest number of
emerging economies are in APNIC region and that’s the next billions of Internet
users….new ecosystem of Internet with different kind of stakeholders- some may
be election shy, the others may be language shy and so on– there is a need to
handhold, to engage/motivate them….they can and shall be leading. Lets open up
and allow them…it’s their turn…. Shortly,
an election specialist/expert wud propose the policy for kind consideration of
the community. Regards,
Naresh Ajwani From: Naresh Ajwani
[mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com] Dear Matthew, Atleast Independent electoral body has the acceptance from other
members also. Please feel free to refer to the old mails from other members. You seem to have assumed acceptance where
there is none. Certainly not from me. Consensus can never be 100% but please don’t keep hitting one
country-it sounds racial and be careful. Changing to member based in the face of
IPv4 exhaustion seems to be a way of stacking the vote by encouraging people to
join for no other reason than voting. Wud appreciate your further elaboration to understand your view
point better. you have, despite demanding change,
actually offered no concrete changes other than one line suggestions. I have compiled my suggestions and motivation from the old mails
to correct your repeatedly imposed perceptions of one liner suggestionsJ. It’s
classified into three parts: 1.
Suggestions 2.
Thoughts from other members 3.
Motivation I.
SUGESSTIONS: “It’s about
concerns which broadly are as follows: 1.
An Election Body shall be responsible for conducting
elections -“You cannot be a Judge in your own Cause”. 2.
Guaranteed result, because of state of origin and distribution
of votes with one block based on the number of IPs procurement, is not a
true democracy or bottom-up process. Sadly, the voting process reflects on the
skewed understanding of democracy and shall be corrected - Internet is the
leveller and not the divider; “one who can afford to procure more IPs can’t
have more rights than the one who can’t” 3.
Specified terms so that all can get the representation in
decision making of Internet policies. Internet enables/connects any part of the
world; the current process is creating incumbency-fresh thoughts/approach is
must for the growth of Internet. “The proposed reforms stand for all 56 countries and my last
mail-point 2 i.e Voting Pattern needs a review; please think from the Internet
perspective-it fills up the divide. Let’s attempt to change and give all
inclusive approach.” “This transparency has to come-how voting took place, number of
votes casted to all candidates....we can’t limit this information to selectd
few.....” “New thoughts toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for
the members, though they may not be an issue with the already NIR possessing
members, viz., Why for so long there was a suspension of the NIR process... who
were responsible for it... Why ITU shall come and give us thoughts of CIR?” “NIR was just one of the examples J Nowhere have I said that we should change the entire election
system. Please refer to my mail commenting over 3 broad areas of concern. These
concerns can be vetted by any expert/specialist who wud also join the chorus. 1.
We need an electoral body—the existing system forces
us to be a Judge for our own cause. 2.
We need a process to facilitate 48 other countries to have the
representation in EC--- We can’t have skewed democratic values and invite
“Cartel/collusion thoughts/comments” for our systems. 3.
We need new thoughts/faces on regular basis to lead us---
Example: why not you be that new face? J “ “All three solutions are reflecting the concerns too. J I paste one
of three areas again and highlight/underline the same, for your reference: We need an electoral body-the existing
system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause. I elaborate the same also for your convenience: If I am an EC
and also be responsible for conducting/deciding on the election issues/concerns
of the contestants, it isn’t appropriate. If u want me to elaborate further on
the origin of the concern, it is possible but that way we wud lose our
objective-“Existence”; much above all the petty concerns. We shall focus on the positive side of this debate-if u think,
there is no need of electoral body and the ECs shall be responsible for the
same, I am okay to drop this debate at this juncture itself.” “So why didn’t we leave the "timeline issue for the proxy
registeration" also on independent friends from other RIR? I propose to
elaborate the issue further but we can't have norms/conflict of interest at our
coneveniences and that’s why I have proposed the Electoral College as first
area of concern. Whats wrong with this proposal; The Electoral College can have
friends from other RIR but they shall not be accountable to the ECs.” “We don’t wait for an accident to occur to take an INSUARANCE. J I don’t think there is any challenge over the need of an
electoral college for conducting the elections. Now let me elaborate further on other two areas of concern: 1.
When we have proportionate voting strengths to the size of our
members why can’t we have proportionate representation? Today world’s
biggest brand is the 5 circles of Olympics. The
most respected brand in the world where just one participant from a country is
lead by the mast holder in the same esteem as the one representing a continent
with 1000 members. In Olympics, the size doesn’t matter and that’s why it
is more respectable than the other brands. 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? 2.
When there is a fixed term for the ICANN Director, why can’t we
have the fixed term for the EC in APNIC?” “I am here to
particpate in the debate for Right Rules and Regulations and therefore invite
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?” 1.
“Once we agree
the way-forward on the election reforms, be assured that the proposed policy
would follow. 2.
The proportional representation because of wealth i.e. “more IP
addresses mean more voting strength” is what I am proposing to correct, 3.
The Formats of debate varies and we shall allow the same J” II. Thoughts from other
members: “- change the structure of the EC? - have a AC like ARIN to deal with policy? - have the responsibility of the EC reduced to just matters of the
secretariat? - have a nominations/election committee with independent bodies?” “More seriously, the election system used
by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the Internet was much less
deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning to be used. I'm
sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue to evolve. Moving
towards full electronic voting might make sense now that entire countries
aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.” III.
MOTIVATION DETAILING: “If we want to be an enlightened organisation, we shall not
hesitate in surfacing issues/concerns. Yours, that matter, everybody's help in
this regard wud be highly appreciated” “In my opinion,
“Internet is the leveller” but the table and the process of Elections are
distinctively dividing the region- I may be wrong in assuming the same but
really dont know that how Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many such
countries can get the representation in current EC structure. I also don’t know
that how can we check a situation like that as "Security Council" if
4 EC members from 3 countries of the same belt i.e. “majority” decides to
block, say for example some country wants to have NIR.” Before any
reforms are undertaken, one needs to understand the past scenario and the
composition of EC (given below) which can be a good starting point:
The table is obvious on
many unspoken but visibly glaring aspects which, coupled with certain important
excerpts of the by-laws reproduced below, will help in understanding the areas
of concern as well as the way forward for the esteemed APNIC-TALK group: The
Executive Council: · .....the
Executive Council shall be composed of seven members elected at AGMs in
accordance with the provisions of by-laws. · Executive
Council members shall serve on the Executive Council in their personal capacity
and shall act in the best interests of the APNIC membership and not the Member
organisation to which that individual belongs. Only one individual per Member
organisation may be elected to sit on the Executive Council. Quorum · A
meeting of the Executive Council is duly constituted for all purposes if at the
commencement of the meeting there are present in person not less than one half
of the total number of Council members or their duly authorised representatives. EC
Confidentiality · All
business undertaken by the EC is confidential to the EC. · All
EC members are requested to execute a formal non-disclosure undertaking with
APNIC · EC
members should respect this confidentiality by:
–
not recording EC meetings
–
not inviting other members to participate in, or listen into EC meetings
without the prior permission
of the Chair of the EC
–
not circulating EC mail messages to any third party without the express
permission of the Chair
of the EC–not divulging any membership information of which they are aware as
an EC member. “My motivation is my APNIC. Our APNIC” Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: Naresh Ajwani
[mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com] Thanks David, I wud incorporate your following suggestion in our
proposal for election reforms: “More seriously, the election system used
by APNIC was initially devised in a timeframe when the Internet was much less
deployed than it is now and the web was only beginning to be used. I'm
sure it has evolved somewhat since then and will continue to evolve. Moving
towards full electronic voting might make sense now that entire countries
aren't behind 9.6Kbps links.” Dear Desi, Any other important point you want to make
please? Regards Naresh Ajwani From: Naresh Ajwani
[mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com] Matthew Moyle wrote: “As far as I can see the two things that need to be done are: 1) Define a single time with respect to UTC
for all future elections that proxies must be assigned by. My suggestion would be UTC+12 which, I
think, should be 17.00 at the most westward point of the APNIC region.
(ie. the end of the usual business day). This is quite arbitrary
but as long as everyone knows and it's on the APNIC webpage it won't be an
issue in future. This means that if someone hears "17.00" then
they will get their proxies in on time no matter where they are. 2) That scrutineers are nominated ahead of
time so that any issues with their impartiality are clearly defined” Dear Mathew, I agree with your suggestions and shall be the responsibility of
the independent electoral body constituted at the time of announcement of
election. What is your opinion about the following: 1.
Equal voting rights to each member of APNIC 2.
Specified terms Regards and best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: Naresh Ajwani
[mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com] Thank you very much, we all are on the same page Regards From: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
[mailto:myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp] Dear Naresh OK, now I understand that you are trying to
resolve what we have met in last AMM by first proposal, thx. I also think it's worth to discuss. However, second and third are not so clear
problem statements at least for me, sorry.
Masato
Dear
Yamanishi San, All three solutions
are reflecting the concerns too. J I paste one of three areas again and highlight/underline the
same, for your reference: We need an
electoral body-the existing system forces
us to be a Judge for our own cause. I elaborate
the same also for your convenience: If I am an EC and also be responsible for
conducting/deciding on the election issues/concerns of the contestants, it
isn’t appropriate. If u want me to elaborate further on the origin of the
concern, it is possible but that way we wud lose our objective-“Existence”;
much above all the petty concerns. We shall
focus on the positive side of this debate-if u think, there is no need of
electoral body and the ECs shall be responsible for the same, I am okay to
drop this debate at this juncture itself. Regards and
best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部)
[mailto:myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp] Dear Naresh, Belows are not
concerns, they are solutions. Nobody can not judge
whether proposed solution is appropreate or not without understanding
underlying concerns and issues. I want to avoid such
situation, and I believe you too. What is your other
concern in addition to NIR delay and the ambiguity of
requirements for scrutineers in by-law which we have met in
last AMM? Masato
Dear
Yamanishi San, NIR was just
one of the examples J Nowhere have
I said that we should change the entire election system. Please refer to my
mail commenting over 3 broad areas of concern. These concerns can be vetted by
any expert/specialist who wud also join the chorus. 1. We need an
electoral body窶杯he existing
system forces us to be a Judge for our own cause. 2. We need a
process to facilitate 48 other countries to have the representation in EC-ツュツュ-- We can窶冲 have skewed
democratic values and invite 窶廚artel/collusion thoughts/comments窶・for our systems. 3. We need new
thoughts/faces on regular basis to lead us--- Example: why not you be that new
face? J At the cost
of being repetitive, it窶冱 about the existence, please. Regards and
best wishes, Naresh Ajwani From: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
[mailto:myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp] Dear Naresh, Even though you may have a concern for the delay of NIR
process, I still feel some kind of logical leap between it and
changing the whole of election system (or changing everything in APNIC). Isn't there any other solution? Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI From: Naresh
Ajwani [mailto:ajwaninaresh at gmail dot com] Good
foundation gives good results. J What is right
today may not be right tomorrow like what was right yesterday is not right
today-we have to keep evolving our process to keep pace with the changing
world. New thoughts
toward NIR are more meaningful and inspiring for the members-this may not be an
issue with already NIR possessing members, Why for so long there was a
suspension of NIR process...who were responsible for it. Why ITU shall come and
give us thoughts of CIR? Dear
Yamanishi San, Hope it addresses your query. We are more concerned on ITU窶冱 approach than
any individual窶冱 role. We
shall reform before anyone points them out and challenges our EXISTENCE. Regards and
best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
[mailto:myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp] Dear Naresh and all, It seems that your concern (and recent discussions) are
focused on the composition of EC and the election system. However, IMHO, the composition
is just the surface and the election system is just a procedure. Most important point for all stakeholder is the output of
EC and each EC member's contribution for it, I believe. What is your concerns from this point? Rgs, Masato YAMANISHI From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
[mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Naresh Ajwani This
transparency has to come-how voting took place, number of votes casted to all
candidates....we can窶冲 limit this information to selectd few.....Shall we move to way
forward or still more discussions are required on the concerns? Regards and
best wishes Naresh Ajwani From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
[mailto:apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Aftab Siddiqui Hello Mathew, In my opinion the problem is not with very "Small Voting
Rights" but the problem is how many members from these economies actually
cast their vote. Can any one from APNIC share these stats? Regards, On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode dot com dot au> wrote: On 09/03/2010, at 3:02 PM, Aadit Shrestha wrote:
Dear
all, How
about having 1 rotating seat for economies like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and others who control very small voting rights, and who
have never had a member elected and cannot do so in
the foreseeable future with the same regulations. There's ~56 countries which are in the APNIC RIR "zone".
I count 9 (Japan, Australia, Korea, India, China, Malaysia, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, Thailand) that have had members from their countries elected to the
board. The seat
could go on a round robin basis on pure consensus. One thing missing from the table of WHO got elected is who has run
for election. Of the nations you mention above have any of them
attempted to gain a position on the EC and been unable? If they were
elected to the EC through a change of policy what would you assert the
difference would be as far as APNIC is run and resources allocated?
Especially as my understanding that the policies behind resource allocation etc
are set by members voting by show of hands at the meetings not by the EC in
private. There seems to be a number of people pushing the idea that somehow
some nations are favoured over others at APNIC and that somehow the nations
with smaller voting rights are "missing out". Is this really
the case? Is it a language issue or a cultural issue? Is the issue that
some people assume it's harder for them than others or that it's harder because
they don't do it that often? The company I work for does quite a bit of
work to do our allocations especially now we have to justify some
historic space. Is the actual issue education and maybe some help/mentoring from
others? eg. maybe some exchange of ideas between members in
different parts of the region might actually help those who don't interact with
APNIC as often for allocation get some help from those who do or have less
cultural/language issues? Regards, Matthew -- Peering Manager and Team Lead - Commercial and DSLAMs Internode /Agile Level 5, 162 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
|