[apnic-talk] Re: Complaint to Electoral Committee
Dear Mr Huang I would be grateful for your assistance. I have submitted a complaint about APNIC'S actions and alleged bias in the 2024 EC elections. The Electoral Committee Chair has confirmed that it is not within the committee's remit to deal with these complaints. Could you please advise me to whom I should address my complaints? It would seem to be a significant oversight if there is no independent body responsible for scrutinizing the actions of APNIC during the election campaign. I imagine, as an elected member of the EC, you would consider this to be a conflict of interest. But please do let me know if it is the elected members of the EC who have responsibility to oversee APNIC's actions. I would be grateful for your immediate response. Thank you Member of APNIC Dear Chair Thank you for your email. Could you advise which independent body does oversee the election process? The only point of referral is to the Electoral Committee and is the only email address available to me. I would be grateful if you could confirm to whom I should be address my serious concerns about the integrity of the election. As my complaint involves the actions of APNIC, I'm not sure they will consider my complaints fairly or without bias. Thank you for your assistance. Dear the poster with tomy...@8lian.cn e-mail address, Thank you for your attention for the APNIC Executive Council Election. I understand you have several points which you want the committee to address. The Electoral Committee was established by the recently revised APNIC by-laws, particularly by its Article 35C, in order "to oversee the nominations and nominee conduct during each Executive Council election". The points you raised in your message are not under the committee's mandate, therefore we are not able to take action for them. Additionally, you should clarify your name, identity and affiliation. Thank you for your understanding for these. All the Best, MAEMURA Akinori, Chair of the APNIC EC Election Electoral Committee On 2024/02/29 13:10, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote: Adding Electoral Committee into the loop Dear Electoral Committee, Would the Committee be as kind enough to provide a full explanation on the number of issues below that go to the integrity of the 2024 EC Elections? 1. APNIC have confirmed that there was an issue with the outsourced voting provider. Whilst we note that the issues have nothing to do with the committee or APNIC, could the committee confirm: A) the nature of the problem B) how the problem was identified and what action was taken C) how many voters were impacted D) that all of the nullified votes have been re-cast E) that no voter has lost their right to vote F) what communication, if any, was provided to the candidates about this issue G) they will provide copies of all communications to APNIC membership (group and individuals) about the problem (please ensure that any personal information such as names, emails and other contact details are redacted). 2. Alleged bias on the EC Homepage favouring incumbent candidates You will have noted a post on the APNIC Mailing List questioning why APNIC favoured three of the five candidates on the election homepage by prominently promoting the incumbent candidates at the expense of the two other candidates. We note that APNIC have now amended the homepage by listing all five candidates fairly. Could the committee confirm the following: A) does the Electoral Committee approve APNIC EC Election content before publication? B) were the Committee advised that a complaint about bias had been made? If so, when were the committee advised? C) did the Committee instruct APNIC to make changes to the website or did APNIC make the changes independently from the committee? D) what communication has the committee or APNIC had with the impacted candidates? E) i) have APNIC or the committee apologised to the impacted candidates? ii)Have any offers of recourse been made to the impacted candidates? F) Does the committee accept that the APNIC home page displayed bias? If yes, please explain why. If no, please explain why. G) What recommendations, if any, will the Electoral Committee, be making to APNIC secretariat on how to remove bias from future elections? 3) Publication of Annual Report and Audited Account four days before the end of the election You will note complaints were raised about the timing of the publication of the annual report and audited accounts. The complaint here is not that the reports and accounts were published but when they were published towards the end of the election process. The EC are meant to be accountable for the report and accounts. It is impossible for them to be held to account when the publications are released towards the election campaign. Voters who had already voted may have wished to change their mind. This has raised legitimate concerns about bias. Can you confirm: A) does
[apnic-talk] Re: Complaint to Electoral Committee
Dear Chair Thank you for your email. Could you advise which independent body does oversee the election process? The only point of referral is to the Electoral Committee and is the only email address available to me. I would be grateful if you could confirm to whom I should be address my serious concerns about the integrity of the election. As my complaint involves the actions of APNIC, I'm not sure they will consider my complaints fairly or without bias. Thank you for your assistance. Dear the poster with tomy...@8lian.cn e-mail address, Thank you for your attention for the APNIC Executive Council Election. I understand you have several points which you want the committee to address. The Electoral Committee was established by the recently revised APNIC by-laws, particularly by its Article 35C, in order "to oversee the nominations and nominee conduct during each Executive Council election". The points you raised in your message are not under the committee's mandate, therefore we are not able to take action for them. Additionally, you should clarify your name, identity and affiliation. Thank you for your understanding for these. All the Best, MAEMURA Akinori, Chair of the APNIC EC Election Electoral Committee On 2024/02/29 13:10, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote: Adding Electoral Committee into the loop Dear Electoral Committee, Would the Committee be as kind enough to provide a full explanation on the number of issues below that go to the integrity of the 2024 EC Elections? 1. APNIC have confirmed that there was an issue with the outsourced voting provider. Whilst we note that the issues have nothing to do with the committee or APNIC, could the committee confirm: A) the nature of the problem B) how the problem was identified and what action was taken C) how many voters were impacted D) that all of the nullified votes have been re-cast E) that no voter has lost their right to vote F) what communication, if any, was provided to the candidates about this issue G) they will provide copies of all communications to APNIC membership (group and individuals) about the problem (please ensure that any personal information such as names, emails and other contact details are redacted). 2. Alleged bias on the EC Homepage favouring incumbent candidates You will have noted a post on the APNIC Mailing List questioning why APNIC favoured three of the five candidates on the election homepage by prominently promoting the incumbent candidates at the expense of the two other candidates. We note that APNIC have now amended the homepage by listing all five candidates fairly. Could the committee confirm the following: A) does the Electoral Committee approve APNIC EC Election content before publication? B) were the Committee advised that a complaint about bias had been made? If so, when were the committee advised? C) did the Committee instruct APNIC to make changes to the website or did APNIC make the changes independently from the committee? D) what communication has the committee or APNIC had with the impacted candidates? E) i) have APNIC or the committee apologised to the impacted candidates? ii)Have any offers of recourse been made to the impacted candidates? F) Does the committee accept that the APNIC home page displayed bias? If yes, please explain why. If no, please explain why. G) What recommendations, if any, will the Electoral Committee, be making to APNIC secretariat on how to remove bias from future elections? 3) Publication of Annual Report and Audited Account four days before the end of the election You will note complaints were raised about the timing of the publication of the annual report and audited accounts. The complaint here is not that the reports and accounts were published but when they were published towards the end of the election process. The EC are meant to be accountable for the report and accounts. It is impossible for them to be held to account when the publications are released towards the election campaign. Voters who had already voted may have wished to change their mind. This has raised legitimate concerns about bias. Can you confirm: A) does the committee believe that the information contained in the report and accounts were of material relevance to the election? If yes, why? If no, why? B) were you aware of the intended timing of the publication of these documents? C) did the electoral committee raise any concerns about the timing of publication and the impact of the fairness? D) do you agree that the timing of the publications had an impact on the fairness election? If yes, why? If no, why? E) does the committee understand why some people who voted at the beginning of the campaign felt that they didn't have full information available to them at the time they voted? F) does the Electoral Committee have a view on the timing of these publications or the timing of future elections to allow for the community to review the
[apnic-talk] Re: Complaint to Electoral Committee
Adding Electoral Committee into the loop Dear Electoral Committee, Would the Committee be as kind enough to provide a full explanation on the number of issues below that go to the integrity of the 2024 EC Elections? 1. APNIC have confirmed that there was an issue with the outsourced voting provider. Whilst we note that the issues have nothing to do with the committee or APNIC, could the committee confirm: A) the nature of the problem B) how the problem was identified and what action was taken C) how many voters were impacted D) that all of the nullified votes have been re-cast E) that no voter has lost their right to vote F) what communication, if any, was provided to the candidates about this issue G) they will provide copies of all communications to APNIC membership (group and individuals) about the problem (please ensure that any personal information such as names, emails and other contact details are redacted). 2. Alleged bias on the EC Homepage favouring incumbent candidates You will have noted a post on the APNIC Mailing List questioning why APNIC favoured three of the five candidates on the election homepage by prominently promoting the incumbent candidates at the expense of the two other candidates. We note that APNIC have now amended the homepage by listing all five candidates fairly. Could the committee confirm the following: A) does the Electoral Committee approve APNIC EC Election content before publication? B) were the Committee advised that a complaint about bias had been made? If so, when were the committee advised? C) did the Committee instruct APNIC to make changes to the website or did APNIC make the changes independently from the committee? D) what communication has the committee or APNIC had with the impacted candidates? E) i) have APNIC or the committee apologised to the impacted candidates? ii)Have any offers of recourse been made to the impacted candidates? F) Does the committee accept that the APNIC home page displayed bias? If yes, please explain why. If no, please explain why. G) What recommendations, if any, will the Electoral Committee, be making to APNIC secretariat on how to remove bias from future elections? 3) Publication of Annual Report and Audited Account four days before the end of the election You will note complaints were raised about the timing of the publication of the annual report and audited accounts. The complaint here is not that the reports and accounts were published but when they were published towards the end of the election process. The EC are meant to be accountable for the report and accounts. It is impossible for them to be held to account when the publications are released towards the election campaign. Voters who had already voted may have wished to change their mind. This has raised legitimate concerns about bias. Can you confirm: A) does the committee believe that the information contained in the report and accounts were of material relevance to the election? If yes, why? If no, why? B) were you aware of the intended timing of the publication of these documents? C) did the electoral committee raise any concerns about the timing of publication and the impact of the fairness? D) do you agree that the timing of the publications had an impact on the fairness election? If yes, why? If no, why? E) does the committee understand why some people who voted at the beginning of the campaign felt that they didn't have full information available to them at the time they voted? F) does the Electoral Committee have a view on the timing of these publications or the timing of future elections to allow for the community to review the documents before voting? On all of these points, could the Election Committee confirm it will be investigating and providing a report to be available to the whole community covering both the issues as well as recommendations for how APNIC can improve the integrity of their elections going forward When will this report be ready?? I would appreciate a full reply. In replying, could you confirm whether the response was written by the committee itself, APNIC Secretariat (staff or consultants) or any other individual or organisation for example legal counsel. May I take this opportunity to thank you all for your service to the election integrity and for acting on the Electoral Committee? It is an important role which the community respects and these questions are presented in the spirit of cooperation and transparency to ensure the integrity of the APNIC EC election. Many thanks for your assistance.___ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
[apnic-talk] Complaint to Electoral Committee
Dear Electoral Committee, Would the Committee be as kind enough to provide a full explanation on the number of issues below that go to the integrity of the 2024 EC Elections? 1. APNIC have confirmed that there was an issue with the outsourced voting provider. Whilst we note that the issues have nothing to do with the committee or APNIC, could the committee confirm: A) the nature of the problem B) how the problem was identified and what action was taken C) how many voters were impacted D) that all of the nullified votes have been re-cast E) that no voter has lost their right to vote F) what communication, if any, was provided to the candidates about this issue G) they will provide copies of all communications to APNIC membership (group and individuals) about the problem (please ensure that any personal information such as names, emails and other contact details are redacted). 2. Alleged bias on the EC Homepage favouring incumbent candidates You will have noted a post on the APNIC Mailing List questioning why APNIC favoured three of the five candidates on the election homepage by prominently promoting the incumbent candidates at the expense of the two other candidates. We note that APNIC have now amended the homepage by listing all five candidates fairly. Could the committee confirm the following: A) does the Electoral Committee approve APNIC EC Election content before publication? B) were the Committee advised that a complaint about bias had been made? If so, when were the committee advised? C) did the Committee instruct APNIC to make changes to the website or did APNIC make the changes independently from the committee? D) what communication has the committee or APNIC had with the impacted candidates? E) i) have APNIC or the committee apologised to the impacted candidates? ii)Have any offers of recourse been made to the impacted candidates? F) Does the committee accept that the APNIC home page displayed bias? If yes, please explain why. If no, please explain why. G) What recommendations, if any, will the Electoral Committee, be making to APNIC secretariat on how to remove bias from future elections? 3) Publication of Annual Report and Audited Account four days before the end of the election You will note complaints were raised about the timing of the publication of the annual report and audited accounts. The complaint here is not that the reports and accounts were published but when they were published towards the end of the election process. The EC are meant to be accountable for the report and accounts. It is impossible for them to be held to account when the publications are released towards the election campaign. Voters who had already voted may have wished to change their mind. This has raised legitimate concerns about bias. Can you confirm: A) does the committee believe that the information contained in the report and accounts were of material relevance to the election? If yes, why? If no, why? B) were you aware of the intended timing of the publication of these documents? C) did the electoral committee raise any concerns about the timing of publication and the impact of the fairness? D) do you agree that the timing of the publications had an impact on the fairness election? If yes, why? If no, why? E) does the committee understand why some people who voted at the beginning of the campaign felt that they didn't have full information available to them at the time they voted? F) does the Electoral Committee have a view on the timing of these publications or the timing of future elections to allow for the community to review the documents before voting? On all of these points, could the Election Committee confirm it will be investigating and providing a report to be available to the whole community covering both the issues as well as recommendations for how APNIC can improve the integrity of their elections going forward When will this report be ready?? I would appreciate a full reply. In replying, could you confirm whether the response was written by the committee itself, APNIC Secretariat (staff or consultants) or any other individual or organisation for example legal counsel. May I take this opportunity to thank you all for your service to the election integrity and for acting on the Electoral Committee? It is an important role which the community respects and these questions are presented in the spirit of cooperation and transparency to ensure the integrity of the APNIC EC election. Many thanks for your assistance.___ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future
David, I find your perspective intriguing. Your argument seems to be that larger members, serving millions of individuals and organizations, should carry a greater voting influence due to their size. Your viewpoint appears to reflect a sense of "unfairness" and even a hint of discrimination in your statement. It's puzzling how you arrived at this conclusion. It's important to note that all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) should treat every member equally, irrespective of their resources or the number of entities they serve. Such treatment should not be based on these factors. Additionally, I don't believe the scenario you described applies to the Asia region. APNIC member fees are significantly lower than a thousand USD, and it's essential not to belittle Asia members or yourself. Lastly, considering your logic, it is also possible that larger members holding more resources could potentially collaborate to pass policies that disproportionately affect smaller members negatively under the current voting mechanism. Would that be considered "fair"? Regarding your comment, FWIW: Buddy, we're in 2022 now. Your reference seems stuck in the mid-1990s. Come on, David. I must emphasise that the internet's scale in the 1990s pales in comparison to the present. The landscape has evolved drastically, and it's no longer confined to a small network engineer community. Tommy - Original Message - From: "David Conrad" To: Cc: Sent:Tue, 15 Aug 2023 18:36:34 -0700 Subject:Re: [apnic-talk] Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future On Aug 15, 2023, at 4:20 AM, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote: > I completely agree that every member, regardless of their resources, should have equal voting power. > The current voting mechanism is inherently unfair, as it allows large-sized members to potentially dominate the vote, leaving smaller members like us without a fair chance to compete under such circumstances. Do you believe (say) an individual associate member that does not provide Internet service should have equal voting power related to IP address allocation policies as (say) China Telecom which provides Internet service to tens of millions of individuals and organizations or JPNIC, which provides addresses to hundreds if not thousands of ISPs in Japan? If so, how exactly would that be “fair”? “Fair” in what sense? It can just as easily be argued that a cohort of smaller members (e.g., imagine a scenario where a well-funded organization pays for membership for thousands of individuals), acting together could cause policies to be implemented that would have direct negative impact to entire countries of millions of people. Would that be “fair"? FWIW: APNIC's weighted voting scheme was put together by the APNIC community of the time (mid- to late-1990s) as a way of trying to balance the fact that the scale of APNIC members resulted in different prioritization of interests. In other governance schemes, this balance was met by having a bicameral system of one form or another. At the time, no one wanted to bother with such complexity (it was a challenge to get anyone to even participate in policy discussions) so a proportional voting scheme was implemented as an acceptable compromise to avoid capture by any one faction. While not ideal, it has provided some stability for 30 years worth of Internet evolution. While “one member, one vote” may provide an impressive increase to APNIC’s bank account, that was never a goal and I doubt it is now. I also don’t see how it makes things more “fair”. Regards, -drc ___ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future
Hello Chris, I hope this message finds you well. I have a question: what is the underlying concern that prevents you from supporting the shift to a "one member, one vote" system? You consistently emphasize the importance of votes from the lower three tiers. The proposal for "One Member One Vote" seems to embody the principle of equal representation for all members. From my perspective, there doesn't appear to be any valid reason to oppose this change, especially in a community that values democracy such as all RIR. Best regards, Tommy - Original Message - From: "Christopher Hawker" To: "JJ" , "apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net" Cc: Sent: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 05:54:55 + Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future Hi JJ, Weighted voting in APNIC can't inadvertently concentrate (and has not concentrated) power within a select few tiers, as I've demonstrated previously. The only way that I see this occurring is if significant resource holding shifts were to take place, which I don't see happening anytime soon. Like I addressed in my e-mail to Vivian, "even if one candidate were to garnish the support of every vote from the top 4 tiers, they would still need a significant portion of votes from the lower 3 tiers". The risk and potential abuse of "one member one vote" systems in my view in the context of APNIC elections and by-law change voting outweighs the benefits. We shouldn't need to change a voting system to highlight the importance of members in lower tiers to candidates, they should already be aware of the importance of each member's vote. If they are not, this then calls into question whether or not they would be appropriate to act on the EC. You state that relevant concerns can be addressed by appropriate safeguards. What do you propose these safeguards can be? Regards, Christopher H. - FROM: JJ SENT: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:13 PM TO: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net SUBJECT: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future Hi Christopher, While the concern of potential manipulation in a "One Member, One Vote" system is valid, it's important to acknowledge that no voting model is entirely immune to exploitation. The current tier-based approach, while seemingly protective against large-scale influence, can inadvertently concentrate power within a select few tiers, neglecting the perspectives of a broader membership base. Shifting to a "one member one vote" system promotes a more democratic and inclusive process, ensuring that each member's voice is heard equally, and preventing decision-making from being disproportionately swayed by a minority with greater resources. Regarding your demonstration of tier-based voting power distribution, it's worth noting that a "one member one vote" system doesn't inherently disregard this balance. Instead, it encourages candidates to engage with members across all tiers, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the organization's diverse needs. While concerns about campaigning to lower tier members are valid, they also highlight the importance of candidates appealing to a wider range of perspectives, reinforcing accountability and representation. In this context, the potential benefits of a "one member one vote" system, including equitable representation and safeguarding against undue concentration of power, can outweigh the risks when accompanied by appropriate safeguards. Best regards, JJ Yap ___ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ [1] To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net Links: -- [1] https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ ___ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
