Dear
Akinori San, I am highly
pained to read your statement for the Review panel report appearing on 12th
August {APNIC Talk} especially after having, according to you “so called
… Prolific discussion in the APNIC talk list” for which I have been
one of the party. First of
all the basic purpose of formation of Election Review Panel with specific
mandate and then making them responsible for making a Report submission gets
lost, if all the stake holders – direct or indirect are not taken into
prior concurrence, confidence & in full support there off. Secondly,
critical reference is drawn to your mentioning “Allegations have been
made under the subject, some frustrations have been expressed” is highly
unwarranted as factual information expressed and opinions given on requested
discussion have been distorted as Allegations & Frustrations. Moreover in
the background of such inhibitions, some of the contributions made during
discussion are termed as Constructive by one of your members, where as in your
views the same are unconstructive. I do not know as to how the Perception
varies to this extent that in the formal writing you have disagreed to some of
the matters (duly discussed in the meeting on 11th August)
vis-à-vis actual discussion & agreement there off. Further,
very casually it has been mentioned that “also some proposals were put
forward” which other-wise was the Main Agenda of meeting which has been
side-lined and someone could easily say to one’s own vested advantage. While I
appreciate your comment that “The EC would like to encourage open
discussion by members and a constructive evolution of APNIC”, yet, on
other hand how do you think that it doesn’t lead to conflict of interests
and have “vested interest” behind this disguised one sided report. If people serving communities, as volunteers, have vested interest
to be scrutinizers then how come EC’s who are conducting elections for EC
and who are from the same community do not have a vested interest Finally, if
we have to make the allegations, we could have stated as to “You have a
colleague who is the “single shareholder”, “Single
Director”, “DG” and “EC” of APNIC. Do you think
it is right to hold all the four positions of the community?. I think we should avoid creating conditions which invite legal
challenge to the body in Australian High Court where they are already facing
issues of 'Not for Profit body' as they have commercial gains and all this is
to protect their interest. - NIR to India means lesser profits to them as per
minutes of meeting (MOM) With
Best Regards SHASHI
PARKASH JERATH ADVISOR
– Tulip Telecom Ltd.
From: MAEMURA
Akinori <maem at nic dot ad dot jp> Date: 12
August 2010 10:05:00 AM GMT+05:30 Subject: [apnic-talk]
The APNIC EC's statement for the Review Panel Report Dear Colleagues,
|