Dear Mr. Hawker, I cannot help but to notice the drafting of Proposal 4 left much to be desired as it fails to establish and does not further define the relationship or extent of proximity or the dynamic of relationship between organisations.
It would seem to the community that an imposition of outright ban of that blanket nature actually encompasses all the organisations with its affiliated entities, whether they had previously transacted with each other in any business dealings before or had been formally endorsed by one another elsewhere. By adopting this proposal, it might open the floodgates for potential abuse and interested party could eliminate opposition by "screening out unwanted candidates" by precluding them from contesting in the seats of Executive Council, so to speak. I am all for the implementation of Proposal 5 but it shall be noted that such an office of Ombudsman or Electoral Committee needs to also be vested with the power as an appeal institution, where it could be the final and legally binding arbiter to determine any appeals arising from the election processes in a timely manner without the need of external intervention and such an independent committee shall also be tasked with the important duty in holding the electoral roll and attend to the general affairs of election. All in all, by having such a committee with recognisable standing of independence, integrity and honesty will greatly enhance the legitimacy and impartiality of the election as there exists an in-house recourse for contestants to air out grievances in proper channel. Regards, Hubert _______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
