Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
This debate does sound like it is turning into a yelling match, but proportional representation is an important issue for people in many nations and cultures.... some that have had to fight for it a lot harder than we've had to in Australia.
I personally think the election process is a bit of a joke - it doesn't need to be so complicated. The whole preference swapping thing is just overcomplicated and smells of backroom deals.
I DO very much support online voting and making it more simple. I also think the process needs to be more transparent. Voting blocks are hurting APNIC and making it vulnerable to the agendas of a few groups. An overhaul of the EC process - limits on terms I believe is important. Perhaps expanding the number of positions or types of positions, i.e. Subcontinent, Pacific and other regional reps whose job it is to represent the interests of those regions? Just an idea... don't attack yet.
There are some issues that need to be dealt with here.... and some that won't go away easily without others going away first.
The 5 year term for DG... I think perhaps 7... whatever the limit is... there should be one.
I think travel should be open and discusses at meetings, or in some forum... I am a big hater of wastage and while there is some here, I doubt it is on purpose - but it still needs to be looked at and justified. I don't think it is sour grapes here... this is a member based organisation and APNIC needs to be accountable to the membership.
Membership fees are of less an issue to me than the Initial start-up fees of $3000+. I've been told APNIC were reviewing this fee yet I've seen nothing happen yet since I was told close to a year ago it was being looked at. Membership fees themselves I think are fair and equitable.
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: apnic-talk-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:apnic-talk-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Matthew Moyle-Croft
> Sent: Sunday, 11 July 2010 8:29 PM
> To: Sameer Bhagwat
> Cc: apnic-talk at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
>
> So,
> We've gone from a few demands to even more and more demands. What's
> next?
>
> I think gerrymandering the management and EC is not going to lead to
> stronger management. I also think limiting the DGs term to 5 years is
> crazy, the turn over, management style changes in conjunction with a
> quick churn of the EC will make for a very much weakened organisation
> and not one I can support.
>
> One of the issues is that few economies appear to nominate for the EC.
> As I've repeatedly said before, maybe you need to start working on
> encouraging fixing that, otherwise we may end up with EC members who
> aren't actually committed and interested. That's not going to help the
> EC be effective.
>
> I think "Top management salaries and calss of travel discuss at apnci
> meeting." is just sour grapes on behalf of people who didn't get
> elected.
>
> The expenses and member fees issue - everyone one wants all costs to be
> reduced. But it's not clear that it would be radically changed.
> Again, I go back to the fact that, despite clearly my comments being
> ignored that APNICs expenses/budget appear to be very in line with ARIN
> and RIPE, they aren't doing too badly.
>
> I again, think that these proposals would as a whole weaken APNIC,
> create a lack of certainty and consistency that we have. I suspect
> they'd raise costs not reduce them, especially the constant turn over
> and lack of long term planning etc.
>
> MMC
>
> On 11/07/2010, at 7:43 PM, Sameer Bhagwat wrote:
>
> > Lets focus on the issues here. I know some of us are not in the
> > position to attend apnic meetings. We are not lucky as people from
> developed countries.
> > We can only say on this email. how many of you agree to these? say it
> on this talk.
> >
> > 1. One member One Vote.
> > 2. Limited period for ECs. Maximum 2 terms.
> > 3. Independent election panel.
> > 4. Minimum regional EC representation. Permanent reservation of 1 0r
> 2 seats
> > for each sub region.
> > 5. Online only voting process, accessible only to the independent
> election panel.
> > 6. Director general for maximum 5 year only.
> > 7. Top management equal representation among sub regions. so they
> have
> > knowledge of our issues.
> > 8. Decrease apnic expenses and decrease member fee.
> > 9. Top management salaries and calss of travel discuss at apnci
> meeting.
> > 10. Minimum one sub regional meeting per year.
> >
> > We do not need anyone to make a policy. Current EC is represnting our
> membership.
> > they must note our discuss and make changes.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > SB
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:16:29 +0530 wrote
> > >
> > MMC,
> >
> >
> >
> > You stand right!
> >
> >
> >
> > Simple terms -
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) Anything and everything at APNIC can be changed by a policy.
> >
> > 2) If balanced representation is a problem, propose a policy and
> > seek voting... everything will then fall "in".
> >
> >
> >
> > Honestly, it is not fair to accuse or comment on anyone with or
> > without evidence in a mailing list, while laid down procedures
> > provision such actions anycase.
> >
> >
> >
> > (Off the record - Infact, one not going thru the laid by-laws or
> > provisions is more regretting than one complying and still getting
> > accused!)
> >
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Kusumba S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11-07-2010 14:01, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/07/2010, at 3:53 PM, Sameer Bhagwat wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Assalam-u-alaikum Aftab,
> >
> > Good question but is Asia and Europe or America region same. Do they
> all have same problems? If yes, then why we need 4 rirs? all regions
> can have only one registry.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why does any country need an NIR then?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Aftab, we have our own problems here and we together have
> responsibility to address them. One can only compare if one is equal to
> the other in all aspects.
> >
> >
> >
> > As I pointed out in a previous post, the budget and expenditure
> ratios look pretty much the same between APNIC, RIPE and ARIN. If you
> want more APNIC money to go toward IPV6 training etc, then maybe raise
> it as a policy?
> >
> > The problem APNIC appears to have is a group of people who, for
> internal political reasons want to take control of APNIC and seem to
> have no moral issues with blaming everyone else and calling everyone
> else corrupt and incompetent without evidence and with complete
> disrespect to people on the EC and the DG.
> >
> > MMC
>
> _______________________________________________
> apnic-talk mailing list
> apnic-talk at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk