JJ, To be purely factual about this and to put aside our differences in views, the process to amend APNIC's by-laws is not as straightforward as you may think.
For a change to the by-laws to take effect, either 75% of the EC (being 6 out of the 7 members) must vote for the amendment or it has to be put to a member vote. For a special meeting and vote to be called, my understanding is that 20% of all members have to call a meeting. Further, by-law changes have to be discussed, community consultations held, and the like prior to a draft wording being completed and a by-law change vote taking place. Your discussion on "one member one vote" was initially sent on 12 August 2023, well after the community consultations for the proposed by-law reforms. The process to change the by-laws can take months, from initial raising of the discussion to the final draft being written, then onto voting. I don't find this perplexing in the slightest. It isn't our collective responsibility to seek clarity on why APNIC is following a normal process as this has been the case for as long as I can remember. Further, the EC doesn't need to provide an explanation as to why your "one member one vote" suggestion was not included in the by-law reforms as proposed. If anything, this demonstrates your failure to understand and lack of knowledge on how by-law changes work and the systemic process behind doing so. There's plenty of information on the APNIC website about this process. I also don't know how you've come to the determination that "shedding light" on why these were not included in the by-law reforms will "address the concerns of many within the community", as it appears as though the discussions to date in active support of this proposal have stemmed from users with @larus.net e-mail addresses (as Karl has mentioned). They were not excluded, rather they were never introduced in the first place for discussion with the current proposed changes. The "exclusion" of your proposed changes may raise serious concerns within LARUS, however they do not within the community as the majority of the community knows that there is a process to be followed. And claiming that by not including your proposed changes (with such short notice) raises concerns about the direction of the community in terms of democratic representation and decision making, especially when barely any members outside of LARUS have weighed in on the subject in support of your proposal is rather amusing. Regards, Christopher H. ________________________________ From: JJ <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:58 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [apnic-talk] Inquiry Regarding Exclusion of "One Member, One Vote" in Proposed By-law Reform 2023 Resolutions Dear All, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing today to address a matter of utmost significance regarding the Proposed By-law Reform 2023 and the resolutions tabled therein. I have reviewed the resolutions made available on the APNIC website (https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/proposed-by-law-reform-2023/) and noticed a glaring omission – the absence of the "One Member, One Vote" proposal, previously discussed in the APNIC-TALK mailing list thread (https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/ZKCVGBHGPQZIYXX74W6PF4QXDT3AJXJY/#U3OWTE7ZI2CT5AFVJMAJYKQYFORE2UBA). The principle of "One Member, One Vote" is not only a cornerstone of transparency and inclusivity but also a fundamental tenet of fair governance in organizations such as APNIC. It serves as a means to ensure that every member's voice is heard and equally weighed in decision-making processes, fostering an environment of democratic participation. Therefore, its exclusion from the tabled resolutions raises serious concerns about the direction our community is heading in terms of democratic representation and decision-making. Given the extensive discussions that have taken place on the APNIC-TALK mailing list, it is perplexing to witness the absence of "One Member, One Vote" in the proposed resolutions. I believe it is our collective responsibility to seek clarity on this matter. I kindly invite the EC to provide an explanation for the omission of such a crucial proposal. Shedding light on the rationale behind this decision would not only address the concerns of many within the community but also reinforce the transparency and accountability that APNIC has consistently strived to uphold. In light of the above, I urge the EC to engage with the community and address this issue promptly. The APNIC community has always thrived on open dialogue and collaborative decision-making, and it is imperative that we uphold these values during this crucial phase of proposed reforms. I eagerly anticipate a response that will clarify the reasons for the exclusion of "One Member, One Vote" from the Proposed By-law Reform 2023 resolutions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JJ Yap _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
