Dear All, have read the earlier posts on one member one vote and also the ones on this thread. I feel that APNIC is a membership driven organisation / company formed with unique interests by members and controlled by members - i.e. by the members, for the members. The unique interest of members are the number resources APNIC has. APNIC is not a sovereign country where one member one vote rules apply. It is a company or even we can say a kind of partnership.
How do companies govern themselves? Companies have shares, these shares are based on the investment done. Hence for governance of the company the number of shares held decides the voting value. The same is good for partnership companies. The logic being that the more you invest the more are your stakes in the governance of the company or partnership. This is true for APNIC also. The more you invest in APNIC's resources the higher you are in its membership tier, hence more rights you should have in its governance. This proportional representation system is the best democratic system of giving rights as per your stake. The argument that one member one vote should be the norm does not hold good here. I feel this one member one vote is being used basically as a red herring to try and push a perverse logic. I recommend that the present proportional representation system is the best in the given circumstances. It has functioned effectively to date. There is no need for any change. _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
