Good morning Owen, Sia raised a very good point in their e-mail, that the greater one’s holdings the greater their interests in governance of a RIR. This is reflected in the number of votes they hold.
The issue with the idea to allow NIR members to vote in APNIC polls for by-law changes is that under Australian corporation law, non-members of the corporation in question are not permitted to vote regarding its governance. The same stands true for EC elections. Positions such as the Policy SIG chair and co-chair aren’t governed by the Corporations Act and are therefore not subject to the same legislation. The way a NIR votes is a matter for the NIR and its members to sort out. Sure, the wider community can make suggestions as to how they can do so however it’s ultimately on them to decide. The only way this could change is if Australia were to pass legislation permitting it. I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Regards, Christopher H. Sent from my iPhone On 2 Sep 2023, at 4:21 am, Owen DeLong via APNIC-talk <[email protected]> wrote: Personally, I do think that the current voting system is a bit rigged in favor of the NIRs and large ISPs voting their interests to the exclusion of all others. I have felt this way long before Larus existed and I continue to feel this way. I do, however, believe that going to straight 1 member 1 vote voting would also be problematic in the APNIC region, primarily because NIRs. Rather, I think that what would make sense would be to go to a 1 entity 1 vote where eligible entities would be defined as any entity that has one or more of the following: 1. An APNIC Membership 2. Resources allocated from an NIR In this way, APNIC could move to a less block-voting dominated form of democracy while not disenfranchising those currently represented. by NIRs. Allowing those members who wish to designate their NIR as their proxy could be used as a solution to any concerns over entitites not wanting to manage their own voting or pay attention to the process. Owen On Aug 29, 2023, at 18:10, Karl Kloppenborg via APNIC-talk <[email protected]> wrote: JJ, The system that is in place currently has been explained to you and your companies collegues ad-nauseam. The community has spoken with many EC submissions for the CURRENT reform policies, in fact when I first started defining some of the reforms (which APNIC has since scrubbed up far better than I could do) I brought up the idea of the “One Member, One Vote” and the overwhelming majority I spoke to were happy with the current voting. It seems you and other @larus.net collegues are pushing for this, not the greater community. If you seriously feel this is in the best of the community, please have the community respond to the orbit lists as respective APNIC members. See you at APNIC 56. Thanks, Karl. From: JJ <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 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]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ 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]
