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 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
