JJ, It's not my intention (or even attempt) to argue for the sake of arguing. You've presented your case for and against the propositions, and I've presented mine. I addressed your remarks in my original reply and when a number of people affiliated with LARUS jumped in on the chain, this is where things took a turn.
I do not believe that LARUS has any intention of safeguarding the interests of APNIC's members, as has been demonstrated with the case of Cloud Innovation Ltd v AFRINIC. If there was a genuine interest in safeguarding members' interests, they would not be jeopardising AFRINIC's ability to service its region by seeking injunction after injunction, leaving it without a CEO or board to govern the organisation, which actually harms all members within the region. As I've said and have done, I'm all for discussing reasonable topics regarding the bylaw amendments. I will, however, not entertain the arguments from organisations who have no bona fide reason for doing so and are baseless. I definitely agree with Aftab - out of a service region which encompasses 56 economies and a population of approximately 4.5 billion people, I too believe there is already a very large population on which we can draw from. Even if we were to look at 0.001% (45,000) people, that's still a massive number of people to look at for an executive council of 7 people. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: Yap Jia Jun (JJ) <j....@larus.net> Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:11 AM To: Christopher Hawker <ch...@thesysadmin.dev> Cc: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms The irritation arises from the apparent intention of someone to argue solely for the purpose of arguing, rather than genuinely proposing ideas that could benefit the members. I strongly advise you to invest some time in contemplating your statements. This is crucial to avoid straying beyond the bounds of relevant discourse within this APNIC bylaw reforms feedback and suggestion forum. If your objective is to claim victory by incessantly presenting irrelevant viewpoints in this conversation, please proceed without restraint. While my colleagues and I are dedicated to safeguarding the interest of the members, you are welcome to remain here and engage in endless and pointless arguments at your discretion. JJ Yap ---- On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 21:33:52 +0800 Christopher Hawker<ch...@thesysadmin.dev> wrote ---- Your frustration is your own doing and through no fault of anyone else. The information surrounding the requirements for companies limited by shares is already in the public domain and freely available on various Australian government websites. Information regarding APNIC's company registration is also public record, also available via the ASIC website. If you are unable to understand that then there's nothing more I can say. Members don't have to purchase these documents. Generally speaking, if a member purchases documents and the purchase is in line with their business (which in most cases it would be, seeing as they are a member of the organisation for which they are purchasing the documents), they should be able to claim these costs as a tax deduction. It is worth noting that I am not a tax agent/practitioner, therefore this info is based on my own knowledge and not legal in nature. You've shared your views (as you're entitled to do), however it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Further, your frustration regarding my disagreement with your statements is your own doing. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: JJ <j....@larus.net<mailto:j....@larus.net>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 10:53 PM To: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net> <apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net<mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>> Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Feedback on APNIC proposed By-law reforms Hi Christopher, It is with mounting frustration that I find myself addressing the same points once again, as it seems my intended message has yet to be fully grasped. My intention remains clear: I advocate for APNIC to disclose the corporate documents or provide a comprehensive write-up elucidating the mentioned arrangement. However, it appears that my position is consistently misconstrued, leaving me increasingly exasperated. I firmly believe that transparency should not come at the expense of burdening members who seek a deeper understanding in relation to the above. Your suggestion that each member should purchase corporate documents for comprehension has left me baffled, to say the least. My earlier responses were never intended as mere criticism; rather, they were sincere attempts to contribute constructively. It is disheartening to see my intentions consistently misconstrued. Furthermore, your continued allusion to supposed malicious accusations against our entity is rather bewildering. Such references seem unnecessary, given our collaborative efforts to enhance the welfare of APNIC’s members. My focus remains firmly on the broader themes of transparency and legal compliance, and any misconceptions regarding individual (Paul’s) focus are unintended. The recurring cycle of disagreement without meaningful progress is frustrating, to say the least. I have previously communicated my viewpoint to you in various forms, hoping to bridge the understanding gap, yet it appears these efforts have yet to bear fruit. I eagerly anticipate your response (constructive), urging you to take all the time you need to thoroughly dissect my proposal before gracing me with your further input. Thanks. 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<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
