Dear colleagues, I hope this message finds all of you well.
I am writing to provide comments and feedback on the recent proposed bylaw reforms by APNIC. I appreciate the organization's commitment to enhancing its governance and operational processes, and I believe that constructive dialogue is essential for fostering a stronger and more inclusive community. General Comments and Feedback: (1) It is imperative to consider restricting the authority to amend bylaws within the jurisdiction of EC members, reserving this power exclusively for extraordinary and emergency situations. To ensure the protection of members' legal rights and remedies, I recommend the provision for members to file injunctions against APNIC when necessary. Currently, the limited connection between members and the organization's bylaws hampers their ability to assert their legal rights in court. Drawing from the lessons learned from other organizations, it is vital for APNIC to engage in a thorough review and prevention of similar issues. Furthermore, prioritizing transparency and accessibility, I strongly advocate for allowing members to actively engage with candidates during election campaigns, facilitated by a revised code of conduct. This measure would contribute to a robust and accountable electoral process, while safeguarding the best interests of APNIC's members. (2) With regard to the proposed appointment of non-voting directors as resident directors, including the esteemed Mr. Paul Wilson, I recommend that APNIC furnish additional details in relation to the aforesaid to provide better clarity to the members. Expanding on this information would enhance our understanding of the roles and potential implications of these appointments, ensuring greater transparency and accountability. (3) It is essential to emphasize the significance of addressing the current ambiguity surrounding subjective elements in the new bylaw proposals. To prevent any inadvertent contradictions with APNIC's foundational principles of clarity, diversity, and inclusion, I strongly advise that these elements be clearly defined. This can be achieved through the establishment of comprehensive guidelines, ensuring that a well-informed and cohesive decision-making process prevails. Comments and Feedback on Proposal 3: I express my reservations concerning the suggested exclusion of candidates with ongoing litigation against APNIC from participating in the EC election. While I acknowledge the necessity of a conflict-free electoral process, this proposition raises substantial concerns about potential misuse, suppression of opposition, and erosion of democratic values. Democracy thrives on safeguarding individual rights and promoting a transparent and inclusive electoral process. Excluding candidates due to ongoing litigation challenges the very essence of democratic representation. Allowing EC members to potentially exploit legal proceedings to stifle opposition undermines the democratic principles that APNIC strives to uphold. Enabling EC members to leverage legal actions against potential opponents creates an unequal power dynamic. This opens the door for those in positions of authority to manipulate the system for personal advantage, thereby hindering healthy competition and innovation within APNIC. Moreover, this proposal might dissuade qualified candidates from participating in the EC election due to concerns of legal repercussions. This could lead to a scenario where potential candidates avoid challenging incumbents or expressing dissent, resulting in a lack of diverse perspectives within the EC. While valid concerns regarding conflicts of interest exist, alternative approaches can address these concerns without compromising the democratic integrity of the election process. Implementing robust conflict of interest disclosure protocols, clear recusal guidelines, and independent oversight mechanisms can ensure transparency while permitting all eligible candidates to participate. In light of the potential implications on democratic values, access to justice, and fair representation, I urge a reconsideration of APNIC's proposed exclusion of candidates with ongoing litigation against the organization from the EC election. It is paramount that APNIC upholds its commitment to democracy, inclusivity, and individual rights while exploring innovative solutions to manage conflicts of interest. Comments and Feedback on Proposal 4: While the stipulation regarding financial misconduct is vital, I recommend expanding this criterion to include any breach of conduct for which an individual has been previously held liable within relevant organizations or jurisdictions. This broader perspective ensures a comprehensive assessment of an individual's ethical and professional track record. Comments and Feedback on Proposal 6: Recognizing the significance of reinforcing the check and balance mechanism in APNIC elections, I propose that the Electoral Committee be led by distinguished individuals, such as retired high court judges from reputable jurisdictions. This leadership would effectively ensure impartiality and transparency during electoral operations. Furthermore, I suggest that both APNIC and the Electoral Committee collaboratively establish a well-defined Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) or its equivalent. This proactive measure is crucial to guide the Electoral Committee’s actions, mitigate subjectivity, and ensure unequivocal decision-making during their duties. By further enhancing the integrity and transparency of APNIC's electoral operations, we can strengthen the foundation of our organization. I trust that these comments and feedback will contribute positively to the ongoing dialogue and refinement of APNIC's bylaw reforms. Your consideration of these perspectives is greatly appreciated, and I look forward to the continued advancement of APNIC's governance and operations. Thank you. Best regards, JJ Yap LARUS Limited _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
