Thank you to APNIC for making the necessary amendments to the election
information page - now treating all candidates equally and fairly by listing
them together.
I don’t know if they have been in touch with the two disadvantaged candidates
directly to discuss this issue.
It's a shame that some in the APNIC community wished to criticise me for
highlighting the issue - after all it is in everyone’s interest that all
candidates are treated equally.
APNIC should be given credit for listening and making the changes.
I encourage everyone to vote in the EC elections.
Jason,
NRS.
---- On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 21:24:35 +0800 Christopher Hawker
<[email protected]> wrote ---
Jason,
As your email appears to be based on a gross misunderstanding or failure to
understand what it clearly states, I am going to keep this as short as possible.
Only the three existing EC members have their names prominently listed with one
click through to their biographies.
Just to clarify things for you as well as anyone else who may be misguided by
your remarks, the page reads (directly above the three names you reference I
might add):
The EC members whose terms are expiring (and eligible for re-election) are
And then goes on to list whose seats are up for election, or re-election if the
members wish to run again. To call out the Secretariat for bias in favour of
the three people listed is deplorable.
The voting system is outsourced to BigPulse in order to maintain complete
transparency and anonymity regarding who has voted for who. The Secretariat do
not see who has voted for who and BigPulse is integrated with MyAPNIC for the
purposes of identifying who has or has not voted only (to prevent members from
voting multiple times). The reason the election had to be reset was because it
allowed for four candidates to be selected instead of three, which would have
been a technical misconfiguration.
The "restrictions" that you speak of are not restrictions in the sense that
they prohibit candidates, rather they are a set of eligibility criteria that
determine whether or not a candidate is eligible to run for a seat on the
Executive Council. Some of these requirements are administrative requirements
(such as an EC member must be able to apply for a DirectorID under Australian
law) and some of them voted on by members (e.g. multiple candidates from the
same corporate group not being able to hold multiple seats). An overwhelming
number of the votes cast by members were in favour of these changes which
clearly demonstrates a bottom-up approach, something which the NRS claims they
advocate for.
For the 2025 elections, I suggest that APNIC enroll on election awareness
training programme so that they understand how to run a free and fair election
properly.
APNIC has been running elections for as long as I can remember. I don't see a
need for the Secretariat to undertake "election awareness training".
By referring to what you've discussed as "serious problems about election
awareness" very clearly demonstrates that either (a) you fail to understand how
the system works, (b) you chose to ignore what the page reads, (c) attempting
to disseminate intentional false and misleading information regarding the
elections which is a common rhetoric coming from the NRS or (d) all of the
above.
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to mailto:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
