Hello Melvin, The allowance of multiple nominees from a single organisation will not enhance diverse representation as it's not likely that multiple nominees from the same organisation will accurately represent the member base, rather it will give them a pathway to modify policy which may benefit the organisation which they come from. 6 of the 13 candidates from the last EC election came either directly from LARUS or known associated entities. Given that LARUS' sole objective is to obtain IP resource holdings and then lease them, I don't believe that LARUS stacking the EC is in the best interest of members.
The restriction imposed by point E under Proposal 3 isn't designed to prevent or limit one's right to commence litigation proceedings. It is the textbook definition of a "conflict of interest" for (as an example) John Doe to be a director of Company A Pty Ltd and Company B Pty Ltd, if Company A commences litigation against Company B. An EC member is a director of APNIC Pty Ltd. Therefore (as I've previously said) it is an inherent conflict of interest, that cannot be appropriately managed or mitigated, for an individual affiliated with an organisation currently involved in litigation to be nominated and elected to the EC. I believe all information relevant to Paul's position has already been transparently disclosed. Again, the requirements are publicly available on the ASIC website. Here's the link again, in case you missed it earlier: https://asic.gov.au/for-business/registering-a-company/steps-to-register-a-company/minimum-officeholders/. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: Melvin Cheng <m.ch...@innovationservice.help> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:31 PM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev> Cc: apnic-talk <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms Hi Christopher, Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response to my viewpoint on APNIC's proposed bylaw reforms. I appreciate the chance to engage in this conversation and to clarify my opinions further. I understand your perspective on restricting EC memberships to active participants within the service region. While I respect your view, I continue to believe that a globally diverse EC could enrich APNIC's governance with varied perspectives and expertise, benefiting the entire community. It's crucial to acknowledge and embrace the potential of meritocracy from talents worldwide, beyond solely considering candidates within the APNIC service region. Regarding the objective of preventing board stacking through multiple nominees from one organization, I hold a differing opinion. Allowing multiple nominees can enhance diverse representation and thought within the EC. I also believe that community input is crucial, as it offers a holistic perspective, ensuring the proposal strikes the right balance between preventing undue influence and promoting fair participation. Your insights into past elections underscore the significance of this matter, and I'm eager to explore how community engagement could enhance this proposal's effectiveness. I would greatly value your thoughts on this. While I understand the goal of preventing conflicts of interest, we must be cautious about potential misuse, especially in cases where the EC might act in bad faith. Concerns raised about using this provision to remove opponents hold validity and merit careful consideration. While individuals have the right to initiate legal actions, the question arises about the intent behind restricting this freedom in the proposed bylaw reform. If the principle is to allow legal conflict resolution, limiting EC eligibility based on ongoing litigation seems counterintuitive. As my colleague suggested, a balanced approach could involve clear and comprehensive guidelines to address conflict of interest scenarios. This would effectively prevent undue influence while preserving candidates' rights and the democratic process. Regarding Mr. Paul Wilson's appointment as resident director, I concur on the importance of upholding legal obligations. However, my colleagues and I emphasize transparently disclosing relevant information, along with its requirements, to the public. Thank you. MC ---- On Wed, 09 Aug 2023 20:34:15 -0700 Christopher H <ch...@thesysadmin.dev> wrote --- Melvin, I agree with proposal 1 in its current form. If someone wishes to run as a candidate for the EC, they should reside within the service region and be actively involved in APNIC's activities. I see no additional benefit in allowing people from economies not within the APNIC service region from joining the EC, as they have their own RIRs they can be involved with should they choose to do so. In relation to proposal 2, I believe this is aimed at organisations who nominate multiple individuals from the same company, organisation or related bodies corporate from sitting on the EC. This is inherently designed to prevent organisations from attempting to "stack the board", which in my view and belief was attempted and ultimately failed during the last election. I'm not sure where community input would be required based on the current proposal wording. With your reply to proposal 3, human rights have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. People are free to commence litigation if they feel they have the right to do so, and APNIC and the EC are not preventing people from doing so. What proposal 3 is intending to do (based on my understanding - I welcome corrections if I'm wrong), is prevent people from organisations currently involved in litigation with APNIC Pty Ltd from becoming candidates and serving on the EC, as all EC members are directors of APNIC Pty Ltd. Using the example from my earlier reply to your colleague, it would be a conflict of interest for John Citizen to be working with an organisation involved in litigation, and then becoming a director of the company they are in litigation with. I believe that bylaw amendments should be put to a vote of members. The EC can put forward recommendations to bylaw changes and the member base can vote on them. After all, APNIC is run for the benefit of members and not that of the EC. As has always been the case, Paul serves as an ex-officio member of the EC, to satisfy the ASIC minimum on-shore director requirement, of at least one director of the company residing within Australia. I don't see an issue with this. Regards, Christopher H. _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net>
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
