Re: [apnic-talk] APNIC EC Election Review Panel
I like much of what you say here, but do have a couple comments as someone watching from the sidelines and looking to future shape of the landscape.
On 21/07/2010, at 2:05 PM, James Spenceley wrote:
>
> In the current circumstances [EC hat on] I have suggested that we find time to have a member voting BoF at APNIC30 and we can discuss this issue and take any appropriate steps from that meeting.
I think this is sensible, provided everyone who crosses the threshold to that discussion comes along with an open mind and willing to look at the issue objectively. (ok, so that is on the wish list ;)
[..]
>
>
> How would we transition between the two DGs ? My guess would be that it would take at least a year of over-lap where we would be paying for 2 DGs. Then you have to consider the internal productivity loss of all the staff and managers having to explain issues and rationale to the new DG which the old DG would simply understand.
>
> Consistency and Historical knowledge in the DG position can not be underestimated.
>
> (Personal opinion) I think the idea is just plain wrong and we should drop it immediately.
>
I'm with you.. but..
> Now (with my EC hat on) the EC appoints the DG, if at any point we think he (or she) isn't doing a good job, we can not renew a contract to take action in-between contract periods to remove him. We have that power, just as a Board of Directors appoints a CEO to the run a commercial company (it is in fact exactly the same).
>
> I can't speak for the EC, but I as a member of the EC I think he is doing a good job, I don't believe we could appoint anyone to do a better job and no members have complained to me that he has done a bad job. On that basis I don't think we should replace him and I don't think it would be good for APNIC if we *had* to.
>
What you describe here is a position where the DG is beyond critical to the organisation. I have a few concerns with that when looking at some of the future scenarios of disruption to the number allocation function. One of those might be the loss a key staff member. So you say he is doing a good job, and don't think he should be replaced and nor do you think it would be good for APNIC if you had to - what if the choice isn't yours? Paul is a free thinking individual, what if he chooses to go sit on the side of a mountain for a few years to count sheep? What if he leaves for a career advancement? What if (god forbid) he falls under a speeding jet-skii? Or anything else that might be descibed as force majeure?
This year long overlap transition sounds to me like a rather large hole with respect to succession planning. I would suggest that as a member of the EC you might want to address that as a significant part of a contingency planning exercise.
> In terms of the EC positions being limited to 1 or 2 terms, I would provide you with my own personal experience. It has taken all of my first year and a half to be able to be in the position where I feel I understand the workings, bylaws and history of APNIC to the point that I can add value. I'm sure the more times I have been through a budget process, the more value I will add. In reality it takes the first term on the EC to get to a position to add signifiant value, I don't believe having the EC change fully every 1 or 2 terms is a positive thing. Again like with the DG role, understanding processes, budgets, issues, governance, history and our complicated APNIC Bylaws is something I don't believe you can pickup quickly. Going in the years of IPv4 exhaustion I believe we want stability not frequent change.
>
I respect you James for being the smart person I know you are, and for making the substantial effort to take on a volunteer role that probably comes with more thorns than petals. But what if that EC change isn't your choice? What if you don't get re-elected? Taking almost a full term to get to the base level of capability as an EC member seems ... well .... inadequate (and a waste) - and most probably as a result of the support you get as an EC member to learn and to understand the ethos of APNIC. Surely in terms of stability there needs to be some higher level of EC support to ensure the rapid deployment of EC 'smarts'? Joining any Board takes time and effort to understand the organisations concerns and issues, so I'm not trivialising the time required - but wondering if enough has been done to help you.
>>
>
> Would you like to discuss the budget for the Operations Department at each member meeting ? Would the budget for the next meeting need to be discussed at each meeting. Why are we picking one cost ceter and pointing to it and saying the members should decided on that but not all items ?
>
> It simply isn't workable, we the community have argued over if address space can be transferred for 2 years (and I helped prolong that discussion so I'm to blame also), do you really think we can reach concencus on every one of 20-30 costs centres in a few hour meeting ? I think we all know that isn't workable, so we are we picking just one to analyse at meetings ?
IMHO its an easy hot button item. But surely as a membership organisation the membership has the right (perhaps duty?) to question the cost centres at particular times? Here is perhaps where (if anywhere) the corporate Id takes a back seat to the membership ideal?
>
> The reality is that the members of APNIC don't dictate to APNIC how to run the business of APNIC, if you put
I think dictate is a bit harsh.. maybe (and i'm guessing here from the emails that have floated by) this is more about the transparency aspect.
[..]
>
> However at the end of the day, we are running out of the most valuable resource the Internet has (and that APNIC has), there is a fundamental problem coming to the businesses of every member. This is the large iceberg (sorry, problem) we all have. How many EC members we have and how they are voted for isn't going to fix that problem, my opinion as a member is that we should be focusing our energy on IPv6 policy and how to ensure the most stable APNIC during and after this period, that I believe is in the best interests of the Internet and the members of APNIC.
I think there are many more challenges ahead, of which IPv6 is certainly one but in some cases now beyond the policy function given policy is a reflection of industry needs (or supposed to be!). I also think that the IPv4 exhaustion will have a more than trivial affect on the APNIC budget as the fees currently stand. And you are right that there are multiple issues, some would say more pressing. Although I'm not sure I would de-prioritise this current vocal issue as I think if handled inappropriately it could create a fundamental constitutional concern.
Cheers