Hi Christopher, I appreciate the opportunity to further discuss the important matters I raised regarding the governance and transparency of APNIC.
Pertaining to (1), I understand your perspective on the issue of restricting the authority to amend bylaws within the jurisdiction of EC members, and I'd like to provide some considerations that support this recommendation. While it's true that EC members are elected by APNIC members and entrusted with decision-making responsibilities, it's also essential to maintain a balance between their authority and the protection of members' legal rights. By reserving the power to amend bylaws exclusively for extraordinary and emergency situations, we can ensure that any changes made align with the organization's fundamental values and objectives, thereby safeguarding the interests of all stakeholders. Moreover, allowing members to file injunctions against APNIC is not meant to undermine the authority of EC members, but rather to provide a legal avenue for members to protect their rights in cases where decisions may adversely affect their interests. This provision can serve as a last resort to address situations where normal governance processes might not adequately address a member's concerns. A carefully crafted injunction mechanism can strike a balance between respecting EC decision-making and upholding members' legal remedies. Regarding member engagement with candidates during election campaigns, I appreciate your clarification on the utilization of Whois data. However, the intention behind advocating for increased engagement is to foster a transparent and accountable electoral process. By revising the code of conduct to facilitate meaningful interactions between members and candidates, APNIC can ensure that the election process is not only fair but also enhances the diversity of perspectives and expertise within the organization. Pertaining to (2) and (3), thank you for your clarification, however, I recommend that APNIC takes proactive steps to provide its members with detailed information about the laws that govern the resident directors and the specific terms and definitions within those laws. This information can be presented in a clear and accessible format, such as through official documents, guidelines, or resources that are easily accessible to all members. Pertaining to (4), APNIC has put forward the idea of encompassing financial misconduct and fraud in its proposals. I would like to build upon this suggestion by proposing an extension of the scope to include breaches of conduct by pertinent organizations as well. This broader scope would ensure that APNIC's governance framework not only addresses financial integrity but also promotes ethical behavior and adherence to conduct standards across the organization and its affiliations. Regarding to my feedback on Proposal 6, of course, we should applaud APNIC for such proposal, in addition to it, my suggestion is to have the electoral committee led by a retired judge or an individual with an equivalent standing. This would serve to enhance the promotion of optimal electoral practices and standards. Look forward to clarifying your doubts, should you have any. 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
