Having gone through the proposed law reforms and ongoing discussions, I have the following views and comments to offer :-
1. Proposal 1 - Geographic Diversity :- I agree with the changes proposed. It is essential that the individual standing for EC elections should be a person with a demonstrated long term commitment to the APNIC community as well as should be a long time resident of his economy. This will ensure that he with his local knowledge and expertise projects and maintains the best interests of the members of his economy/region. 2. Proposal 2 - Corporate Diversity :- I agree with the changes proposed in proposal 2 for the reason that the individual standing for EC should be from diverse companies, membership. This will ensure that no one organisation can resort to APNIC EC stuffing. APNIC is a membership driven organisation. The interest of all members will be best protected if we have a diverse EC leadership representing maximum regional membership. I find that currently the EC represents a very diverse and representative regional and corporate membership. This is the way it should be. 3. Proposal 3 - Conflict of Interest :- The terms and conditions laid out to ward off conflict of interest are acceptable. It is of paramount importance that the individuals who stand for EC elections do not have any conflict of interest and that they are able to perform their duties freely and fairly. 4. Proposal 4 - Legal Capacity and Conduct :- The proposed changes are apt and should be adopted. I do not think anyone would have any issue with the conditions proposed. 5. Proposal 5 - Nominee Attendance :- Attendance for the proposed Nominee at the meeting is desirable. This will give opportunity to members present to interact with the nominee and understand him.The members, I am sure would like to see the candidate and hear him out before casting their vote. However I feel the condition of nominee to have attended on three of last seven APNIC meetings (in person or online) is too liberal or less. I feel that the candidate standing for EC elections should be an active and committed member of the APNIC community. Presence and taking part in the meetings/events/workshops etc are the best barometer of commitment and dedication. I feel that the nominee should have attended at least three meetings of the last seven in person and addtional minimum two online. 6. Proposal 6 - Election Oversight :- Yes we need to have a robust election oversight system in place. Over the last 25 years APNIC has been conducting elections successfully and transparently. No reason why that should not happen in future. I recommend that the EC ensure two issues ie firstly, the committee should be formed of individuals having impeccable standing and record. Secondly enough powers are given to them to enable them to perform their duties diligently. On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 5:44 AM Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 04:57, Lu Heng <h...@anytimechinese.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> A simple math here, total 27 extra large member can cast about 7000 vote >> all by its own during last election. >> > > Just for the sake of simple math, 27 extra-large members can vote 1728 > votes to a single candidate. Don't combine votes for all seats they can > cast, it is still 1728 "per candidate" > > >> And last time the wining vote, in which was historical high, only 5000 >> vote. >> > > Again for the sake of FACTS, the highest winning vote count was 5734. So > again using the simple math there are still 4006 votes which came from > other tiers. Let's do more math. > > Very Large: Total votes 1408 > Large: Total votes 2656 > Assuming all the top 3 tier members voted for this candidate then it will > match the number it got. If you believe that candidate was able to convince > all these top tier organizations to vote for them then I guess you are > barking up the wrong tree. > > >> Do we want have an RIR basically run by government department(many of >> NIRs are) and large telecoms where vast majority of mid to small member >> does not have a voices at all? >> > > NIRs have 64 votes, they can't simply elect any candidate with their votes > at all. I don't think all NIRs stop any organization in their service > economy from directly joining APNIC as there are several direct members > from each of NIR service economies, but if they stop them then that's the > fight between NIR and its members. > > >> While weighted voting will greatly benefits my company since we are the >> third largest member in one of the RIRs, I still believe the voice of the >> small member should be equally heard. >> >> And don’t mistake size of business for rights to represent, Telstra >> might serve entire Australia but it does not mean all its customers >> consent Telstra represent them in internet governance matters, Telstra can >> only represent it’s cooperate self. So does any small or media companies, >> they can only represent it’s cooperate person, in which by law, as one >> legal entity. >> > > It's not about the size of business, because I, as a member and the > wealthiest corporate in this country, have the equal amount of votes. You > combine all the Extra Large and Very Large in Australia and they will still > be irrelevant in terms of business size of some of the very small members. > It's about the resource holding, not the size of the business, I'm sure you > are not that naive. The big 4 telcos in Australia have every right to have > their say in terms of who governs "the registry" as they are the major > resource holders, I as a user of these resources should not have a say, If > any user is interested then they should join APNIC as a member and have > their voice heard, which I did long time ago. > > APNIC is not a magnanimous Internet Governance body of some kind which can > tell the Govts around the world or region on how to make their policies, > they can't even tell the city council to change anything, but can request > like any other business or resident in the catchment. Treat them what they > are, "Registry". > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to apnic-talk-le...@lists.apnic.net
