Hi chris:
It’s already traded as intangible item, if you want argue this point the
boat has sailed ten years ago.
Billions of dollar ASSET purchase agreement signed worldwide each year,
every one of them treat IP as an asset as the title of the agreement
suggested.
It does not demonstrate any
Raising taxation concerns wasn't designed to be discussed here, it was simply
demonstrating one of the issues that will arise of people owning their IP
resources as an intangible item.
You've also not addressed the issue regarding management of the ownership
database:
* Who will be
Hi Chris:
How legislator doing their taxing law is not a relevant discussion here.
Every policy requires human execution, humans are receptive towards
corruption.
Lesson in 20th Century told us while market is not perfect, it is still the
only method we human know to equally distribute limited
Lu,
I do not believe ownership of IP resources is in the spirit of a "free
internet". Ownership of IP resources doesn't decentralise an internet. If
anything, it will create a power struggle between the smaller players in the
industry and the larger powers who possess large holdings, allowing
Hi Barry:
in order to avoid everything you said, decentralize it, let each ISP own
their registration, no central power point, no power struggle.
We will not need any grace from anyone, there is no central power,
uniqueness guaranteed by everyone instead of one single organization.
On Sat, 19
I’ve heard your voice. The problem is that you are not taking time to
understand any other voices.
Go back to the beginning and understand why RIPE is set up around EU dynamics,
why ARIN is set up around DC dynamics, and why APNIC is set up around
APEC/ASEAN dynamics.
Always remember,
Hi berry:
Your argument simply does not make sense.
One member one vote works very well in ARIN and RIPE, why it can not work
in Asian countries?
Why one member one vote will let PTA taking control? Pakistan alone does
not have enough vote to win anything.
I believe all NIR member should
On Aug 17, 2023, at 17:25, Lu Heng wrote:PTA DG came to an event specifically in support of my election for the contribution we are doing in Pakistan economy. And he specifically presented unfair resources distribution situation around the global.By PTA, I’m assuming you are referring to
Hubert,
I do not believe that replies on Orbit are being deleted, rather it appears to
be a technical limitation as to the character limit when replying via e-mail,
as it posts the entire chain in the reply message on Orbit. I don't believe
they've been removed.
you agree that "Each NIR holds
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 15:06, Hubert wrote:
> Dear Aftab,
>
> You are spot on that APNIC is not some magnanimous almighty governance
> body which gets to decide unilaterally on policy issues, which ultimately
> its very mandate has to be obtained from the community, which is exactly
> what we
Hi Aftab:
You are the one separating misinformation here.
I meet the DG in person during election event earlier this year, he told me
that letter was absolutely geniuses, I asked because paul Wilson made
accusation during hawaii PTC event saying it was not.
PTA DG came to an event specifically
Hey,
> I find impossible to agree such sentiment.
>
I was only stating facts.
> Aftab, while your argument greatly favors my company, as I said, I own a
> company who is third largest resources holder in an RIR, but such argument
> is simply wrong for the vast majority of internet users to
Dear Aftab,
You are spot on that APNIC is not some magnanimous almighty governance body
which gets to decide unilaterally on policy issues, which ultimately its very
mandate has to be obtained from the community, which is exactly what we are
campaigning for, to have RIR reduced to nothing but
Hi
The governance of APNIC essentially initiated by it’s community, regardless
they are member of it or not, community is everyone, every internet user
regardless if they are member or not, THEY HAVE A RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE.
A hundred companies can basically choice entire EC in a member size of
Dear APNIC secretariat,
Here is a repost of the trails of email communications in between me and Gaurav
Kansal, whose insights are incredible and ought to be made known to the
community, to make sure everyone understands what possible ramifications it
entails for weighted voting
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
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 04:57, Lu Heng 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
Hi Christopher,
I think we are missing the point here. In APNIC 55 EC elections, every
member had an option of choosing 4 candidates, so theoretically, the
total available votes were 35004*4, i.e., 140,016 and the total casted
votes were 33,247. So, approx. voting was 24% only (considering that
Hi
A simple math here, total 27 extra large member can cast about 7000 vote
all by its own during last election.
And last time the wining vote, in which was historical high, only 5000 vote.
Do we want have an RIR basically run by government department(many of NIRs
are) and large telecoms where
On Aug 16, 2023, at 1:42 AM, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote:
> Your argument seems to be that larger members, serving millions of
> individuals and organizations, should carry a greater voting influence due to
> their size.
That is the argument, yes. Specifically, that in the context of developing
Dear Mr. Hawker,
I beg to differ as it does not really have to be someone from Australia to be
supervising the independent committee, such Ombudsman could be anyone of the
similar stature from any respectable and credible jurisdiction, of course
preferably one from the commonwealth countries.
Dear Mr. Hawker,
If I were you, I will be expressing gratitude to that kind internet stranger
for pointing out the fact that me, who is presumably a English native speaker,
still erred at some point by using wrong choice of vocabulary in an internet
argument, and not provoking him by stating
Hubert,
If your opening sentence is going to be knocking someone over one error, make
sure you get your own right. I've lost count at the number of spelling,
grammar, punctuation and poorly formed sentence flaws in your last e-mail. I'm
also pleased to know that you're aware of what a
Dear JJ,
You are absolutely spot on how minority members may struggle to have a
meaningful impact, which is largely made attributable to the flawed weighted
voting mechanism in place, and further exacerbated by proxy voting and multiple
selection of candidates' system.
I also have to point
Hi JJ,
You do raise some good ideas. Something that can be considered in place of a
retired judicial officer is the possibility of a Justice of the Peace (JP)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace#Australia) if deemed
suitable to act as an election chair. JPs are people who are
Dear Mr. Hawker,
Before I go all technical with you by flooding you with calculation, the
grammar nazi in me had to point out that its called "GARNER" support, not
garnish and garnish is either a court order or the one final touch you added to
the pasta you had as dinner earlier.
So, by know
Hi Gaurav,
Thank you for the correction regarding the APNIC 55 EC Election stats. You're
right, I did not factor in members being able to vote once for each open seat.
I believe it's hard to say that someone would have only needed 15% of the votes
cast to take over the EC. It's very easy to
Hi Christopher,
Here are a few ideas I've been considering:
To begin, we might consider implementing campaign spending limits. This
approach ensures a fairer competition, preventing candidates with more
financial resources from gaining an undue edge. This way, candidates would need
to
(Thanks Hubert for bringing Gaurav's discussion into light)
Hi Gaurav,
Thank you for enlightening us on your perspective.
Certainly, I share the same thought on your concerns about the current EC
election system raise valid points about the potential concentration of power
and the
Dear Gaurav,
Big fan of your work sir and I share the same sentiment too; and also noted on
your salient remarks made in the meeting as well as the conference on 27 July
2023.
Imagine a world where a group of individuals, with a mindset of taking over the
APNIC, and have seized control
Hi Christopher,
I think the gist of the discussion shall first go into “whether the system
is fair” or not before making possible assumptions. The latter is
necessary, but assumptions can go both ways.
It is equally possible to assume that it is also much easier for a
well-funded company to get
Hello Tommy,
My two main points are:
1. The argument that the “one member one vote” approach being better for
members isn’t supported by data analysis from prior elections and the current
spread of voting power between the membership tiers, and
2. The risks associated with implementing such a
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
Any bets on this stuff featuring in the NRS campaign for the 2024 EC election?
I can hear that Irish actor in a video now - "Members are demanding APNIC
become a true democracy, not the oligarchy of large resource members protecting
their own interests that it is today. And why do those
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
Hi Barry,
Firstly, im not understabd that how could you judging me that im not
understanding APNIC history ? I would like to engage in a respectful discussion.
Secondly, considering the passage of 30 years, it is indeed reasonable to
reassess and improve the mechanisms in place. The world has
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
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
Hello Vivian,
While yes, it might take effort to convince 44 members to get 1408 votes,
moving to a "one member one vote" system will also make it easier to exploit
the voting rights of members with lower resource holdings. To refer to David's
e-mail from earlier today, it would also allow for
Hi Christopher,
While I agree with you on the maths, we need to also think of how it works
in reality. The problem of the current voting system is that it makes it
much easier for some to get votes by focusing on a few organizations.
To get 1408 votes, let's say, will take the effort to convince
Just to clarify a point in this reply:
I cannot speak as to whether or not someone how or possibly could access the
voters' roll, as I don't know what safeguards are in place to protect this
information. Having said this, I doubt this took place as I was the voter for a
member, and received no
Hubert,
Let's say that I was privy to the number of registered members and their
membership tiers at the time , this does not mean that "the community should be
in fear that APNIC database security was compromised". There are avenues for
obtaining such information through legitimate methods,
Hi Hubert,
As a point of data for you,
We hadn't previously voted before but did this time to ensure that Larus did
not stack the EC.
I am looking forward to voting in the proposed protections to APNIC and I think
it is very important that they occur.
Thanks,
Michael.
Hi David/Barry,
“These objectives are included in the By-laws that govern the role of APNIC and
the APNIC Secretariat.
To:
Provide Internet resource allocation and registration services to enable
communications via open system network protocols and to assist in the
development and growth of
Dear Mr. Hawker,
It is good that you cleared the air by confirming you have not been made privy
to such raw data, or else the community should be in fear that APNIC database
security was compromised.
Seriously, does referencing style matter in a public forum which is set up to
spark
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 14:30, Christopher Hawker wrote:
>
> As of 16:30 AEST on 02 March 2023 (when the APNIC 55 EC Election polls
> closed), there were 33,247 votes cast[1]. As of yesterday, there were a total
> of 35004 possible votes based on the number of registered members. Based on
>
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 13:37, David Conrad wrote:
>
> 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
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 12:51, Fraser McGlinn wrote:
>
> It would be great if you can leave the skeptics at the door, and actually do
> some research before spreading misinformation.
@Fraser … you means people should be doing their RTFM? :-)
Given the bullying behavior, I would be shocked if
> On Aug 16, 2023, at 10:40, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> It is illogical
Hubert,
Unfortunately, I'm not privy to the exact number of registered members at the
time the polls closed, so I need to make some educated assumptions.
As of 16:30 AEST on 02 March 2023 (when the APNIC 55 EC Election polls closed),
there were 33,247 votes cast[1]. As of yesterday, there were
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
Dear Mr. Hawker,
As conveyed to Mr. McGlinn earlier, I understood that those data is publicly
available but that is not the raw data I mentioned. APNIC, as the only entity
with the actual voter- rolls (i.e. lists of names and addresses of all the
actual people registered to exercise the
Hubert,
How can one refer to voting behaviours and patterns of members without this
information being made public? What's the source of your "raw data"? I'm sure
you can understand and appreciate the need to substantiate and back statements
with correct data sources.
Regards,
Christopher H.
Hi,
This is public information, and not very difficult to find.
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/members/
https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/elections/ec/voting/how-many-votes/
The stats that were provided by Christopher were based on total member count,
not
Dear Mr. McGlinn,
Thank you for your information but both the links have already been provided by
Mr. Hawker in his previous postings, and I too have read them and even
dissected the annual reports but none of them details the actual voters turnout
rate for each membership tiers. The raw
Hubert,
The data that I obtained can be found at
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/members/ and
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/,
not "held in secrecy by APNIC's back-end staffs", rather it is publicly
I agree with mr Lu Heng
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, 2:10 PM Lu Heng wrote:
> Hi Colleagues:
>
> Just like in the United nation, a country big or small always gets the
> same voting power.
>
> We believe in diversity of membership and have members' voices heard, big
> or small.
>
> So I advocate EC
Hi,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
Dear Mr. Hawker,
I will start this off by stating how impressed I am that you seem to be able to
glean into the raw data which is presumably held in secrecy by APNIC's back-end
staffs, by knowing the exact breakdown of (up to actual count) that the total
numbers of members from each tiers
Hello JJ,
I too, do believe in the "One Man, One Vote" principle. It does go a long way
in demonstrating that no matter the person, no matter their status, no matter
their wealth, their values and opinions are just as important as each other.
Regarding the usage of weighted votes in APNIC
Hi Colleagues,
Expanding upon my earlier communication, I am providing clearer picture of the
distinct advantages inherent in the One Member, One Vote system below:
The proposal for "One Member, One Vote" stems from the principles underpinning
"One Man, One Vote," predominantly established
Hi Colleagues:
Just like in the United nation, a country big or small always gets the same
voting power.
We believe in diversity of membership and have members' voices heard, big
or small.
So I advocate EC consider putting one member one vote into the bylaw
reform, in process towards truly
Stop sending me emails
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 10:56, JJ wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I trust this finds you well.
>
> I draw gratification from the substantial response that my preceding
> suggestion and feedback thread has garnered made available at
>
63 matches
Mail list logo
