[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Lu Heng]

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 issue aside from your ignorance of the market
reality.

In a decentralized internet, there is no maintenance fee, one possible way
doing it will be blockchain, everyone maintains same registration book and
holds their own private key to their registration.

Of course it is possible with today’s blockchain to manage registration
database without centralized body.

You welcome study the technology and contribute the technical details when
time comes.



On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 12:30 Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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 responsible for managing ownership records?
>- What happens to your resources if you stop paying this maintenance
>fee? Do you lose ownership or routability? Is a charge placed upon
>your resources until fees are paid?
>- What jurisdiction oversees this?
>
> Management of an ownership database wouldn't be possible without
> centralising management. This in turn creates what you're trying to
> prevent. A number of organisations could be established to manage such a
> system and decentralise IP resource management, however I've got a strange
> feeling that this is already being done by a number of organisations...
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:18 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* Barry Raveendran Greene ; tommy...@8lian.cn <
> tommy...@8lian.cn>; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net  >
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and
> Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future
>
> 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 resource.
>
> I don’t think any single player can control the market, we are one of the
> large ones, we only have 0.1% of the IPv4, far less by any economic means
> enough to control the market.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 12:05 Christopher Hawker 
> wrote:
>
> 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
> them to control the market. It also throws out almost every policy that has
> been put into place to protect resources.
>
> There would also be jurisdictional issues surrounding ownership,
> cross-border importation and taxation of intangible goods, etc. For
> example, how will the Australian Taxation Office tax IP resources as they
> would be considered a "thing" that can be owned and "imported" if an
> Australian-based entity makes a purchase from someone in Singapore, or
> Taiwan for example. I only use the ATO as an example as I am based in
> Australia, however I imagine that similar issues would arise for other
> economies. If you buy a /24 for $10,000 AUD and sell it for $15,000 AUD,
> would you be subject to capital gains tax on the profit? Transferring IP
> resources opens a pandora's box on how governments from economies will see
> and treat these resources. As members do not currently own these resources,
> and are simply granted a license to use them, this significantly simplifies
> things. This is one of the few (albeit major) issues that I can think of.
>
> Then there is the issue of who would manage such a database of owners'
> records. It would require some form of registry, which APNIC wouldn't do
> for free... Things cost money. There's ongoing costs with maintaining such
> a system. What happens to your resources if you stop paying this
> maintenance fee? Do you lose ownership or routability? Is a charge placed
> upon your resources? What jurisdiction oversees this?
>
> The current process has worked for decades. I don't see any reason for
> such a major change.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2023 2:32 PM
> *To:* Barry Raveendran Greene 
> *Cc:* tommy...@8lian.cn ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
>
> *Subject:* [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy:
> Championing 'One Member, One Vote' 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Christopher Hawker]

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 responsible for managing ownership records?
  *   What happens to your resources if you stop paying this maintenance fee? 
Do you lose ownership or routability? Is a charge placed upon your resources 
until fees are paid?
  *   What jurisdiction oversees this?

Management of an ownership database wouldn't be possible without centralising 
management. This in turn creates what you're trying to prevent. A number of 
organisations could be established to manage such a system and decentralise IP 
resource management, however I've got a strange feeling that this is already 
being done by a number of organisations...

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Barry Raveendran Greene ; tommy...@8lian.cn 
; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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 resource.

I don’t think any single player can control the market, we are one of the large 
ones, we only have 0.1% of the IPv4, far less by any economic means enough to 
control the market.



On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 12:05 Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
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 them to 
control the market. It also throws out almost every policy that has been put 
into place to protect resources.

There would also be jurisdictional issues surrounding ownership, cross-border 
importation and taxation of intangible goods, etc. For example, how will the 
Australian Taxation Office tax IP resources as they would be considered a 
"thing" that can be owned and "imported" if an Australian-based entity makes a 
purchase from someone in Singapore, or Taiwan for example. I only use the ATO 
as an example as I am based in Australia, however I imagine that similar issues 
would arise for other economies. If you buy a /24 for $10,000 AUD and sell it 
for $15,000 AUD, would you be subject to capital gains tax on the profit? 
Transferring IP resources opens a pandora's box on how governments from 
economies will see and treat these resources. As members do not currently own 
these resources, and are simply granted a license to use them, this 
significantly simplifies things. This is one of the few (albeit major) issues 
that I can think of.

Then there is the issue of who would manage such a database of owners' records. 
It would require some form of registry, which APNIC wouldn't do for free... 
Things cost money. There's ongoing costs with maintaining such a system. What 
happens to your resources if you stop paying this maintenance fee? Do you lose 
ownership or routability? Is a charge placed upon your resources? What 
jurisdiction oversees this?

The current process has worked for decades. I don't see any reason for such a 
major change.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng mailto:h...@anytimechinese.com>>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Barry Raveendran Greene mailto:bgre...@senki.org>>
Cc: tommy...@8lian.cn 
mailto:tommy...@8lian.cn>>; 
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
mailto: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 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 Aug 2023 at 04:18, Barry Raveendran Greene 
mailto:bgre...@senki.org>> wrote:

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, APNIC exist by the grace of civic society. ITU would love to 
create another department for RIRs 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Lu Heng]

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 resource.

I don’t think any single player can control the market, we are one of the
large ones, we only have 0.1% of the IPv4, far less by any economic means
enough to control the market.



On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 12:05 Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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
> them to control the market. It also throws out almost every policy that has
> been put into place to protect resources.
>
> There would also be jurisdictional issues surrounding ownership,
> cross-border importation and taxation of intangible goods, etc. For
> example, how will the Australian Taxation Office tax IP resources as they
> would be considered a "thing" that can be owned and "imported" if an
> Australian-based entity makes a purchase from someone in Singapore, or
> Taiwan for example. I only use the ATO as an example as I am based in
> Australia, however I imagine that similar issues would arise for other
> economies. If you buy a /24 for $10,000 AUD and sell it for $15,000 AUD,
> would you be subject to capital gains tax on the profit? Transferring IP
> resources opens a pandora's box on how governments from economies will see
> and treat these resources. As members do not currently own these resources,
> and are simply granted a license to use them, this significantly simplifies
> things. This is one of the few (albeit major) issues that I can think of.
>
> Then there is the issue of who would manage such a database of owners'
> records. It would require some form of registry, which APNIC wouldn't do
> for free... Things cost money. There's ongoing costs with maintaining such
> a system. What happens to your resources if you stop paying this
> maintenance fee? Do you lose ownership or routability? Is a charge placed
> upon your resources? What jurisdiction oversees this?
>
> The current process has worked for decades. I don't see any reason for
> such a major change.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
> --
> *From:* Lu Heng 
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 19, 2023 2:32 PM
> *To:* Barry Raveendran Greene 
> *Cc:* tommy...@8lian.cn ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> 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 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 Aug 2023 at 04:18, Barry Raveendran Greene 
> wrote:
>
>
> 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, APNIC exist by the grace of civic society. ITU would love
> to create another department for RIRs controlled by the ITU membership. MII
> would walk in and take charge of your IP assets.
>
> Your myoptic hammering is not allowing other points of view, regional
> dynamics, respect for the hard work, and other important factors needed for
> effective policy discussion.
>
> Any by the way … my name is Barry.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
> --
--
Kind regards.
Lu
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 them to 
control the market. It also throws out almost every policy that has been put 
into place to protect resources.

There would also be jurisdictional issues surrounding ownership, cross-border 
importation and taxation of intangible goods, etc. For example, how will the 
Australian Taxation Office tax IP resources as they would be considered a 
"thing" that can be owned and "imported" if an Australian-based entity makes a 
purchase from someone in Singapore, or Taiwan for example. I only use the ATO 
as an example as I am based in Australia, however I imagine that similar issues 
would arise for other economies. If you buy a /24 for $10,000 AUD and sell it 
for $15,000 AUD, would you be subject to capital gains tax on the profit? 
Transferring IP resources opens a pandora's box on how governments from 
economies will see and treat these resources. As members do not currently own 
these resources, and are simply granted a license to use them, this 
significantly simplifies things. This is one of the few (albeit major) issues 
that I can think of.

Then there is the issue of who would manage such a database of owners' records. 
It would require some form of registry, which APNIC wouldn't do for free... 
Things cost money. There's ongoing costs with maintaining such a system. What 
happens to your resources if you stop paying this maintenance fee? Do you lose 
ownership or routability? Is a charge placed upon your resources? What 
jurisdiction oversees this?

The current process has worked for decades. I don't see any reason for such a 
major change.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Lu Heng 
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 2:32 PM
To: Barry Raveendran Greene 
Cc: tommy...@8lian.cn ; 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 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 Aug 2023 at 04:18, Barry Raveendran Greene 
mailto:bgre...@senki.org>> wrote:

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, APNIC exist by the grace of civic society. ITU would love to 
create another department for RIRs controlled by the ITU membership. MII would 
walk in and take charge of your IP assets.

Your myoptic hammering is not allowing other points of view, regional dynamics, 
respect for the hard work, and other important factors needed for effective 
policy discussion.

Any by the way … my name is Barry.





--
--
Kind regards.
Lu

___
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

[Lu Heng]

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 Aug 2023 at 04:18, Barry Raveendran Greene 
wrote:

>
> 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, APNIC exist by the grace of civic society. ITU would love
> to create another department for RIRs controlled by the ITU membership. MII
> would walk in and take charge of your IP assets.
>
> Your myoptic hammering is not allowing other points of view, regional
> dynamics, respect for the hard work, and other important factors needed for
> effective policy discussion.
>
> Any by the way … my name is Barry.
>
>
>
>

-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

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, APNIC exist by the grace of civic society. ITU would love to 
create another department for RIRs controlled by the ITU membership. MII would 
walk in and take charge of your IP assets. 

Your myoptic hammering is not allowing other points of view, regional dynamics, 
respect for the hard work, and other important factors needed for effective 
policy discussion. 

Any by the way … my name is Barry. 



___
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

[Lu Heng]

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 automatically be APNIC members with nominal
fee and also get one vote.

Every voice matters.



On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 02:53 Barry Raveendran Greene 
wrote:

>
>
> 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 Pakistan. If yes, then that DG
> would know that the International Governance path for “significant change
> to the system” consultation would be through the APEC Telecommunications
> Ministerial meetings. That is not happening.
>
> Mr Lu, you really need to spend some time understanding the International
> Governance for Internet and Telecommunications.
>
> The ICANN, RIR, and LIR system is allowed to happen. A 51% vote in the ITU
> and each of those 51% countries can wipe out everything. Then your “1 vote
> per member” is trashed. The Internet would be under the direct authority of
> the local governments.
>
> What you get with 1 member 1 vote are organizations like PTA and MII
> taking over.
>
> Today’s Internet Governance models slowly evolved with consensus with the
> constituents (the people the LIRs represent), national telecom regulators,
> and international UN agencies.
>
> Read the consultations “like the Green Paper” discussion in APRICOT when
> IPs addresses and DNS TLDs were OWNED by the US Government.
>
> [image: APRICOT98.gif]
>
> ICANN History: "Green Paper" @ APRICOT 98 (Part One)
> 
> senki.org 
> 
>
>
> [image: APRICOT98.gif]
>
> ICANN History: "Green Paper" @ APRICOT 98 (Part Two)
> 
> senki.org
> 
>
> 
>
>
> --
--
Kind regards.
Lu
___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

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 Pakistan. If yes, then that DG would know that the International Governance path for “significant change to the system” consultation would be through the APEC Telecommunications Ministerial meetings. That is not happening. Mr Lu, you really need to spend some time understanding the International Governance for Internet and Telecommunications. The ICANN, RIR, and LIR system is allowed to happen. A 51% vote in the ITU and each of those 51% countries can wipe out everything. Then your “1 vote per member” is trashed. The Internet would be under the direct authority of the local governments. What you get with 1 member 1 vote are organizations like PTA and MII taking over. Today’s Internet Governance models slowly evolved with consensus with the constituents (the people the LIRs represent), national telecom regulators, and international UN agencies. Read the consultations “like the Green Paper” discussion in APRICOT when IPs addresses and DNS TLDs were OWNED by the US Government. ICANN History: "Green Paper" @ APRICOT 98 (Part One)senki.orgICANN History: "Green Paper" @ APRICOT 98 (Part Two)senki.org___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 their own elections to make determinations as to 
how the NIR should vote. This process would be the responsibility of the NIR to 
manage under the countries' relevant laws if applicable and independent of 
APNIC"
I didn't say that I agreed to this, I stated that it was a possible solution to 
Gaurav's concerns about NIR members having a say in the EC elections. As I am 
not affiliated with an NIR and any decisions they make don't affect me, it's 
not for me to agree or disagree with any solutions.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert Yap 
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:52 PM
To: Gaurav Kansal 
Cc: Christopher Hawker ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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 mechanism as compared to our "one member one vote" 
ideology. I hope it is merely a mistake that both threads started by 
Christopher Hawker and I in responding to Guarav's comment are removed, for 
inexplicable reasons.

Dear Christopher,

If my memory serves me right, you seem to acknowledge your shortcomings in 
failing to consider the multiple selection of candidates and underlying proxy 
issues, as well as you agree that "Each NIR holds their own elections to make 
determinations as to how the NIR should vote. This process would be the 
responsibility of the NIR to manage under the countries' relevant laws if 
applicable and independent of APNIC", which we are agreeable to such proposal 
of yours. Please bring that whole argument of yours to light again.

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 of 15% of the voting rights, it does open up 
space for the formation of a syndicate to gain an undue advantage over election 
results and possibly maneuver the election process to its own advantage. To 
make matters worse, one who is privy to pertinent information such as the 
electoral rolls and the voting bloc's distributions will undoubtedly lead to 
proxy abuse where one in the know could sway votes by influencing members with 
significant voting rights to vote in their favors, or as I have said in my 
previous argument, "the Friends of APNIC".

And also imagine a world where APNIC EC is hijacked,(did not happen in the last 
25 years and I sure hope that it would not happen in the future but we cannot 
dismiss quickly as the risk is always there, especially in the present 
situations), the whole by-laws reform processes where the community has toiled 
hard in contributing valuable inputs and poured ini immense efforts in 
providing constructive feedbacks; will become a total waste and futility if 
such EC gets hijacked as they could change the by laws anytime, again.

Sadly, no matter how great your insights and foresights were, where your 
grievances were finally made conveyed to the higher up sitting on the pedestal, 
the response that you got was none other than a patronising and non-chalant 
response from its Senior Legal Counsel, "thank you for your feedback and as 
with other comments received, they are all noted and passed on"

Regards,

Hubert



 On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:29:08 +0800 Gaurav Kansal 
mailto:gkansal...@gmail.com>> wrote ---




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 every voter casts votes for 4 
candidates) and that too when we saw a huge hue and cry in APNIC because of a 
potential EC coup attempt.
The top 4 selected got 4-5K votes, which is roughly equal to 15% of 35004, So 
anyone who has control of only 15% voting rights can take over the EC and 
subsequently APNIC.

The main problem in APNIC EC voting is Proxy and the option of selecting more 
than one candidate for each voter. I raised this point in the Elected member's 
meeting also but wasn't able to convince the decision-makers. I also raised a 
point of extending the voting rights for NIR members (as they are also 
in-direct APNIC 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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 are campaigning for, to have RIR reduced to nothing but a role of
> bookkeeper, and to stop them from overstepping their original duties.
>

They still are a "Registry" and have been doing that since its beginning,
haven't stepped out of their scope which we as members have defined. You
can't fix something which isn't broken. There is always room for
improvements which we as members have been doing for decades.


> However, I notice there is something amiss on your calculation method in
> conjuring up the voting bloc. By now, I guess we already know there are 44
> Very Large members in APNIC and each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408
> votes and another 27 Extra Large members where each entitled to 64 votes
> totaling 1728 votes, in total where both coalesce will make up the numbers
> of 3136 votes, and just when you think the calculation ends here, hold your
> horses.
>
> APNIC election allows multiple selection of candidates which begets
> multiple casting of votes, so with that 3136 numbers of votes, multiply by
> 4 (as options of choosing up to 4 candidates) then you will be getting a
> whopping sum of 12,544 votes, cast'em all over the "friends of APNIC" and
> it will average about 5k per votes per candidate, and lo and behold, that
> is exactly the highest winning vote count from last election. Coincidence?
> I think not.
>

Mate, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Extra-Large and
Very-Large members all together "CAN NOT" cast more than 3136 votes for a
candidate.
___
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

[Lu Heng]

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 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.

That’s why I just don’t see how this fake letter head accusation could
possible be true, because came to event speak and support me is much great
support than a simple letter.

the other time I heard such accusation was from paul Wilson, so you two
have same source of information that I am not aware of?

Care to share that in public?

Yes, LARUS does not have any IP holding in this region, hence avocating
weight voting system in which can be used as argument in other region to
support similar system would be in my personal interest.

However I believe in greater good of the internet rather than selfish
interest.

I believe in members.


On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 11:08 Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> 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 have their voice
>> heard and represented.
>>
>
> The company you are representing here is Larus, which doesn't hold any
> resource in the registry we are talking about and even if you held the
> biggest chunk of it I would still stick to what I have said.
>
>
>>
>> For people such your own country man from Pakistan where your DG of PTA
>> have made presentation about how unfair the situation is.
>>
>
> Did you tell him how someone made a fake letter on the PTA
> letterhead citing support for CI and submitted it in the Mauritius court
> and made a video of it through NRS? I guess not. oh by the way why was that
> video removed?
>
> Anyways, I normally don't drag such stuff on the mailing list. I, as a
> member, submitted my proposal to the EC and Secretariat and made it known
> to my local community and have no intention to create unnecessary traffic
> here but will definitely correct anyone with misleading information and
> flat out lies.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 06:14 Aftab Siddiqui 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 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 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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 have their voice
> heard and represented.
>

The company you are representing here is Larus, which doesn't hold any
resource in the registry we are talking about and even if you held the
biggest chunk of it I would still stick to what I have said.


>
> For people such your own country man from Pakistan where your DG of PTA
> have made presentation about how unfair the situation is.
>

Did you tell him how someone made a fake letter on the PTA
letterhead citing support for CI and submitted it in the Mauritius court
and made a video of it through NRS? I guess not. oh by the way why was that
video removed?

Anyways, I normally don't drag such stuff on the mailing list. I, as a
member, submitted my proposal to the EC and Secretariat and made it known
to my local community and have no intention to create unnecessary traffic
here but will definitely correct anyone with misleading information and
flat out lies.




>
>
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 06:14 Aftab Siddiqui 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 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
>>
>>
>> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
___
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

[Hubert]

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 a role of bookkeeper, and 
to stop them from overstepping their original duties.

However, I notice there is something amiss on your calculation method in 
conjuring up the voting bloc. By now, I guess we already know there are 44 Very 
Large members in APNIC and each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408 votes and 
another 27 Extra Large members where each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728 
votes, in total where both coalesce will make up the numbers of 3136 votes, and 
just when you think the calculation ends here, hold your horses.

APNIC election allows multiple selection of candidates which begets multiple 
casting of votes, so with that 3136 numbers of votes, multiply by 4 (as options 
of choosing up to 4 candidates) then you will be getting a whopping sum of 
12,544 votes, cast'em all over the "friends of APNIC" and it will average about 
5k per votes per candidate, and lo and behold, that is exactly the highest 
winning vote count from last election. Coincidence? I think not.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Lu Heng]

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
almost 10,000, you are exactly avocating 1% decides all.

I find impossible to agree such sentiment.

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 have their voice
heard and represented.

For people such your own country man from Pakistan where your DG of PTA
have made presentation about how unfair the situation is.



On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 at 06:14 Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> 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 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
>
>
> --
--
Kind regards.
Lu
___
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

[Hubert Yap]

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 mechanism as compared to our "one member one vote" 
ideology. I hope it is merely a mistake that both threads started by 
Christopher Hawker and I in responding to Guarav's comment are removed, for 
inexplicable reasons.



Dear Christopher, 



If my memory serves me right, you seem to acknowledge your shortcomings in 
failing to consider the multiple selection of candidates and underlying proxy 
issues, as well as you agree that "Each NIR holds their own elections to make 
determinations as to how the NIR should vote. This process would be the 
responsibility of the NIR to manage under the countries' relevant laws if 
applicable and independent of APNIC", which we are agreeable to such proposal 
of yours. Please bring that whole argument of yours to light again.


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 of 15% of the voting rights, it does open up 
space for the formation of a syndicate to gain an undue advantage over election 
results and possibly maneuver the election process to its own advantage. To 
make matters worse, one who is privy to pertinent information such as the 
electoral rolls and the voting bloc's distributions will undoubtedly lead to 
proxy abuse where one in the know could sway votes by influencing members with 
significant voting rights to vote in their favors, or as I have said in my 
previous argument, "the Friends of APNIC".



And also imagine a world where APNIC EC is hijacked,(did not happen in the last 
25 years and I sure hope that it would not happen in the future but we cannot 
dismiss quickly as the risk is always there, especially in the present 
situations), the whole by-laws reform processes where the community has toiled 
hard in contributing valuable inputs and poured ini immense efforts in 
providing constructive feedbacks; will become a total waste and futility if 
such EC gets hijacked as they could change the by laws anytime, again. 



Sadly, no matter how great your insights and foresights were, where your 
grievances were finally made conveyed to the higher up sitting on the pedestal, 
the response that you got was none other than a patronising and non-chalant 
response from its Senior Legal Counsel, "thank you for your feedback and as 
with other comments received, they are all noted and passed on"



Regards,



Hubert








 On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:29:08 +0800 Gaurav Kansal 
 wrote ---











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 every voter casts votes for 4 
candidates) and that too when we saw a huge hue and cry in APNIC because of a 
potential EC coup attempt. 

The top 4 selected got 4-5K votes, which is roughly equal to 15% of 35004, So 
anyone who has control of only 15% voting rights can take over the EC and 
subsequently APNIC.



The main problem in APNIC EC voting is Proxy and the option of selecting more 
than one candidate for each voter. I raised this point in the Elected member's 
meeting also but wasn't able to convince the decision-makers. I also raised a 
point of extending the voting rights for NIR members (as they are also 
in-direct APNIC member and pays for the resources) which can expand and 
diversify the number of voting members and can potentially limit the coup by a 
few selected members, but this also didn't find suitable by decision-makers.



Regards,

Gaurav 



On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 07:58, Christopher Hawker  
wrote:






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 a total of 35004 
possible votes based on the number of registered members. Based on these 
figures, 94.98%
 of members cast their votes in the EC election. A rather significant number, 
and a number all members should be very proud of. Only 1757 votes were either 
abstained or not cast in time.



APNIC has processes and procedures in place to prevent what you are inferring 
could have happened. They intentionally use voting platforms that 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Nextra Developer]

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 
wrote:

> 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 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
>> 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Aftab Siddiqui]

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 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] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Gaurav Kansal]

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 every
voter casts votes for 4 candidates) and that too when we saw a huge hue and
cry in APNIC because of a potential EC coup attempt.
The top 4 selected got 4-5K votes, which is roughly equal to 15% of 35004,
So anyone who has control of only 15% voting rights can take over the EC
and subsequently APNIC.

The main problem in APNIC EC voting is Proxy and the option of selecting
more than one candidate for each voter. I raised this point in the Elected
member's meeting also but wasn't able to convince the decision-makers. I
also raised a point of extending the voting rights for NIR members (as they
are also in-direct APNIC member and pays for the resources) which can
expand and diversify the number of voting members and can potentially limit
the coup by a few selected members, but this also didn't find suitable by
decision-makers.

Regards,
Gaurav

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 07:58, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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 a
> total of 35004 possible votes based on the number of registered members.
> Based on these figures, 94.98% of members cast their votes in the EC
> election. A rather significant number, and a number all members should be
> very proud of. Only 1757 votes were either abstained or not cast in time.
>
> APNIC has processes and procedures in place to prevent what you are
> inferring could have happened. They intentionally use voting platforms that
> are hosted and managed by external independent organisations to prevent
> these types of allegations from occurring. There was significant interest
> sparked in the community, in the lead up to the EC elections so this is
> what most likely resulted in the jump.
>
> Finally, if you are going to quote sources, do so properly and reference
> links that directly support your argument as I have, instead of just
> stating "source: bigpulse online voting". You'll find that whatever
> argument you have might hold more weight than it does without. Feel free to
> use my method of referencing as an example.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> References:
> [1] APNIC Executive Council Election 2023 Results -
> https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=1347334F85MguQmfUrTmJkLupT9
>
> --
> *From:* Hubert 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:21 AM
> *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
>
> 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 Member’s voting
> rights), will be able to confirm if the one man one vote mechanism would be
> vital and necessary, and certainly not you who presumably do not have
> access over such raw data. That explains why I was baffled at how could you
> infer such voting patterns by solely relying on the public data.
>
> Anyway, speaking of data, here is some interesting observations (source:
> bigpulse online voting), that in APNIC 2023's elections, the vote total
> jumps by +18,568, i.e. by a lot more than the total vote in 2022 (14,679).
> The increase in vote total from 2022 to 2023 is 4 to 6 times greater than
> the increase in vote total from 2021 to 2022.
>
> So I cannot help but to question, is it legit and legal? or is it
> manufactured and manipulated? is it really normal to have such complete
> anomaly in any election? The way I see it, such numbers does not grow
> methodically, but rather spike up the moment we start contesting and
> stating a wonderful grass-root movement.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hubert
> ___
> 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
>
___
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

[Lu Heng]

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 vast majority of mid to small member does not
have a voices at all?

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.

Hence one member one vote is not only needed, but a must for APNIC move to
true member based RIR.

And berry’s claim that APNIC is not member based, but it is also not
constituency like a parliamentary, because what I just said, being a
customer of a company does not means you give them the rights to represent
you in the society for anything.

It’s simply a hugely flawed system where in power ones have been given huge
advantage, and even trying to expand that advantage by introducing
geographic divisions.

It’s a deep and dangerous rabbit hole will have huge consequences for the
internet for years to come.





On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 22:44 David Conrad  wrote:

> 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 Internet numbers resource policy that potentially impacts
> operating networks, the APNIC community of the time felt it was
> inappropriate for a single individual to have the exact same voice as
> entities that represented tens or hundreds of millions of individuals. Or
> do you believe individuals require hundreds of millions of IP addresses and
> multiple ASNs, need to document millions of dollars worth of infrastructure
> spend to justify allocations, have the need to deploy services in multiple
> countries, etc.?
>
> 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.
>
>
> You apparently need to reread what I wrote, particularly the part where I
> wrote "APNIC's weighted voting scheme was put together by the APNIC
> community of the time”.
>
> What is actually puzzling is identifying the problem you and your LARUS
> colleagues are trying to solve (well, other than trying to protect
> rent-seeking behavior of course).
>
> Additionally, I don't believe the scenario you described applies to the
> Asia region.
>
>
> I commend your belief.  What data do you have to back up that belief?
>
> APNIC member fees are significantly lower than a thousand USD,
>
>
> Relevance?
>
> and it's essential not to belittle Asia members or yourself.
>
>
> Exactly where did I belittle anyone?
>
> 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.
>
>
> APNIC has existed for 30 years. Can you point to one instance of such
> behavior?
>
> Would that be considered "fair"?
>
>
> So your proposal is to trade a potential unfairness in a system that has
> operated for 30 years without (to my knowledge) an actualization of that
> unfairness for another untested system that has identified risks for which
> you have provided no mitigations nor justification for the change?
>
> If you’re actually concerned about such a scenario, as opposed to (say)
> merely trying to distract from efforts to protect rent-seeking behavior,
> here’s an idea: propose a solution for that particular problem, e.g., a
> mechanism/process to appeal decisions voted on by the membership (note:
> this might actually already exist -- I didn’t bother to check).
>
> Regarding your comment, FWIW:
>
> Buddy,
>
>
> ?
>
> we're in 2022 now.
>
>
> Actually, I believe we’re more than 8 months into 2023 now.
>
> Your reference seems stuck in the mid-1990s.
>
>
> Given I was writing about actions that occurred in the mid-1990s, that
> would seem appropriate.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Indeed, and APNIC (and the other RIRs) has evolved (and continues to
> evolve) over time. I’m a big fan of that evolution (hint: I 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[David Conrad]

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 
Internet numbers resource policy that potentially impacts operating networks, 
the APNIC community of the time felt it was inappropriate for a single 
individual to have the exact same voice as entities that represented tens or 
hundreds of millions of individuals. Or do you believe individuals require 
hundreds of millions of IP addresses and multiple ASNs, need to document 
millions of dollars worth of infrastructure spend to justify allocations, have 
the need to deploy services in multiple countries, etc.?

> 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.

You apparently need to reread what I wrote, particularly the part where I wrote 
"APNIC's weighted voting scheme was put together by the APNIC community of the 
time”.

What is actually puzzling is identifying the problem you and your LARUS 
colleagues are trying to solve (well, other than trying to protect rent-seeking 
behavior of course).

> Additionally, I don't believe the scenario you described applies to the Asia 
> region.

I commend your belief.  What data do you have to back up that belief?

> APNIC member fees are significantly lower than a thousand USD,

Relevance?

> and it's essential not to belittle Asia members or yourself.

Exactly where did I belittle anyone?

> 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.

APNIC has existed for 30 years. Can you point to one instance of such behavior?

> Would that be considered "fair"?

So your proposal is to trade a potential unfairness in a system that has 
operated for 30 years without (to my knowledge) an actualization of that 
unfairness for another untested system that has identified risks for which you 
have provided no mitigations nor justification for the change?

If you’re actually concerned about such a scenario, as opposed to (say) merely 
trying to distract from efforts to protect rent-seeking behavior, here’s an 
idea: propose a solution for that particular problem, e.g., a mechanism/process 
to appeal decisions voted on by the membership (note: this might actually 
already exist -- I didn’t bother to check).

> Regarding your comment, FWIW:
> 
> Buddy,

?

> we're in 2022 now.

Actually, I believe we’re more than 8 months into 2023 now.

> Your reference seems stuck in the mid-1990s.

Given I was writing about actions that occurred in the mid-1990s, that would 
seem appropriate.

> 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.

Indeed, and APNIC (and the other RIRs) has evolved (and continues to evolve) 
over time. I’m a big fan of that evolution (hint: I was an author of RFC 7020). 
Sorry, your point was what exactly?

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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

[Hubert]

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.

I propose that the Ombudsman to be the final and legally binding arbiter with 
actual determinative powers to hear any appeals filed and/or decide on the last 
recourse in all complaints from Members (as well as internal matters between 
e.g. Director-General and the EC, or within the EC) and during election time, 
to be tasked with specific duties such as to be in charge of oversight of APNIC 
elections, including 
running all elections and holding all voter-rolls.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Hubert]

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 that he is equally a failure for 
making multiple mistakes in his written response. 

Oh well, sorry for not proofreading and let me re-read it; lame quips, hanging 
sentences, atrocious grammar, inconsistent narrator position (sometimes "I" 
sometimes "we"), a whole lot of words without taking an actual position. okay 
you got me, I guess that goes to show I am not a bot or AI, just an 
enthusiastic member whose mind is overflown with thoughts and eager to chip in 
his humble thoughts to the subject topic.

Anyways, quoting your "Each NIR holds their own elections to make 
determinations as to how the NIR should vote. This process would be the 
responsibility of the NIR to manage under the countries' relevant laws if 
applicable and independent of APNIC" can I just say how elated I am that we 
finally get to see eye to eye on this, and you have my word that I will be 
rooting for you to have that plan proposed to NIR for their kind 
considerations. Having said that, I am however still of the view that NIR 
members shall still be accorded with rights to vote as the voice they represent 
is too big to be missed.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 "garnish" is, both verb and 
noun definitions.

One cannot set percentages on how many votes it will take to acquire a seat in 
an election before election voting has closed, as there are variables at hand 
that cannot be determined prior to an election, such as the number of voters 
who vote, the number of votes they cast and the number of seats up for election 
are the three key elements at hand. There is no possible way for anyone to know 
how many members will vote for a specific candidate until the conclusion of the 
vote. The percentage required would be different if there were 3 candidates for 
1 seat, compared to 15 candidates for 4 seats.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2023 12:24 AM
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

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 I guess we already know there are 44 Very Large members in APNIC 
and each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408 votes and another 27 Extra Large 
members where each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728 votes, in total where 
both coalesce will make up the numbers of 3136 votes, and just when you think 
the calculation ends here, hold your horses.

APNIC election allows multiple selection of candidates which brings about 
multiple casts of votes, so with that 3136 numbers of votes, times 4 you will 
be getting a whopping sum of 12,544 votes, cast'em all over the "friends of 
APNIC" and it will average about 5k per votes per winning candidate, which all 
in all to effect a coup'd'etat successfully all it takes is just a mere 15% of 
the entire voting rights,

and now you tell me, how easy it is for APNIC to seek support and solidarity 
from the 71 members, through either signing a MOU or CSA in collaborating, in 
exchange of continued delegation of resources, compared to members who mean 
well without resources, who need to campaign hard by adopting "knock at the 
door" approach in ensuring their well thought out election manifestos for the 
greater good could reach the ears of the community and at the same time, risk 
having their membership terminated and being precluded to contest in the next 
upcoming election?

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Hubert]

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 out that unlike large or extra large members, the minority 
members often do not pay enough attention to the current trends and development 
concerning APNIC's community, and they are at same time deprived of adequate 
resources to be channeling enough energy and attention to such pressing issues. 
Hence, it would come off as no surprise that the voters' turnout from those 
group will be lower as compared to those who are from the large and extra 
larger ones, whereas their business interest is so entangled with any APNIC's 
policy development until at some point, they are dependent on each other, 
willing to help each other to make sure they could both coexist well in the 
ecosystem we are in.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 trusted to be 
honest, careful and impartial which would meet all requirements.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: JJ 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:50 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,

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 emphasize their ideas and their ability to connect with members, rather than 
relying solely on their financial capacities. Of course, I acknowledge that 
controlling spending can be challenging. However, one potential avenue is to 
establish a transparent and accountable monitoring mechanism that tracks 
candidates' expenditures closely.

Implementing measures to manage campaign spending could involve mandating 
candidates to furnish comprehensive breakdowns of their campaign expenses. 
These financial disclosures would then be subject to meticulous review and 
scrutiny by the proposed independent oversight committee. This committee, 
responsible for ensuring fairness and transparency throughout the entire 
election process, could conduct regular checks and audits to ensure that all 
aspects of the election remain above board. By actively monitoring the 
proceedings, this committee would instill confidence among members, assuring 
them that their votes hold significance and contribute to a genuinely equitable 
decision-making process.

Lastly, having a solid code of conduct for candidates would be a great 
safeguard. This code would make sure that candidates are playing by the rules 
and being respectful. It would prevent any shady tactics or false information 
from muddying the waters. When everyone's on the same page and sticking to fair 
play, it creates an environment where real discussions and smart decisions can 
happen.

Do you have any other suggestions for enhancing and reinforcing the Code of 
Conduct to address potential gaps?

Look forward to hearing from you !

Best regards,
JJ Yap
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Hubert]

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 I guess we already know there are 44 Very Large members in APNIC 
and each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408 votes and another 27 Extra Large 
members where each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728 votes, in total where 
both coalesce will make up the numbers of 3136 votes, and just when you think 
the calculation ends here, hold your horses.

APNIC election allows multiple selection of candidates which brings about 
multiple casts of votes, so with that 3136 numbers of votes, times 4 you will 
be getting a whopping sum of 12,544 votes, cast'em all over the "friends of 
APNIC" and it will average about 5k per votes per winning candidate, which all 
in all to effect a coup'd'etat successfully all it takes is just a mere 15% of 
the entire voting rights, 

and now you tell me, how easy it is for APNIC to seek support and solidarity 
from the 71 members, through either signing a MOU or CSA in collaborating, in 
exchange of continued delegation of resources, compared to members who mean 
well without resources, who need to campaign hard by adopting "knock at the 
door" approach in ensuring their well thought out election manifestos for the 
greater good could reach the ears of the community and at the same time, risk 
having their membership terminated and being precluded to contest in the next 
upcoming election?

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 say after an election, as the 
statistics are available. Prior to voting commencing, there is no way for 
anyone to know exactly how many votes are needed in order to secure a seat as 
no one knows how many members will vote or how many votes will be cast. The 
only guaranteed way to count the votes required is to consider the maximum 
number of possible votes.

In relation to proxy voting, these are written into the By-laws of APNIC that 
form the constitution of APNIC Pty Ltd. There are provisions that allow for 
changes to the constitution, one of them being that any changes must be put to 
a member vote.

To address your concerns regarding extending voting rights to NIR members, as 
members of NIRs aren't considered members of APNIC Pty Ltd under the 
Corporations Act, they don't have an entitlement to vote (as was explained to 
you previously in APNIC-talk thread 
https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/thread/WEIWGXGFUEH6CDJUX2B22G2VVAEAGOCQ/.
 The NIR organisations themselves are however considered members with voting 
rights. There are a number of ways to address this:

1. Each NIR holds their own elections to make determinations as to how the NIR 
should vote. This process would be the responsibility of the NIR to manage 
under the countries' relevant laws if applicable and independent of APNIC,
2. Members of NIRs can become members of APNIC, as long as they meet the 
requirements and pay the appropriate fees, or
3. (I'm not sure if this is possible) NIR members transfer their resource 
holdings to APNIC, pay the appropriate fees, and in turn become APNIC members.

It's not that it wasn't "[found] suitable by decision-makers", rather it is 
Australian law that non-members aren't permitted to vote.

As for voting once per seat, I do see some benefit in only being able to vote 
for one seat. This would further help prevent people from attempting to 
nominate candidates that may stem from the same group of individuals, as was 
demonstrated during the last election. There may be certain restrictions around 
this, however I don't have the knowledge to comment further.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Gaurav Kansal 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 8:29 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: Hubert ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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 every voter casts votes for 4 
candidates) and that too when we saw a huge hue and cry in APNIC because of a 
potential EC coup attempt.
The top 4 selected got 4-5K votes, which is roughly equal to 15% of 35004, So 
anyone who has control of only 15% voting rights can take over the EC and 
subsequently APNIC.

The main problem in APNIC EC voting is Proxy and the option of selecting more 
than one candidate for each voter. I raised this point in the Elected member's 
meeting also but wasn't able to convince the decision-makers. I also raised a 
point of extending the voting rights for NIR members (as they are also 
in-direct APNIC member and pays for the resources) which can expand and 
diversify the number of voting members and can potentially limit the coup by a 
few selected members, but this also didn't find suitable by decision-makers.

Regards,
Gaurav

On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 07:58, Christopher Hawker 
mailto:ch...@thesysadmin.dev>> wrote:
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 a total of 35004 
possible votes based on the number of registered members. Based on these 
figures, 94.98% of members cast their votes in the EC election. A rather 
significant number, and a number all members should be very proud of. Only 1757 
votes were either abstained or not cast in time.

APNIC has processes and procedures in place to prevent what you are inferring 
could have happened. They intentionally use voting platforms that are hosted 
and managed by external independent organisations to prevent these types of 
allegations from occurring. There was significant interest sparked in the 
community, in the lead up to the EC elections so this is what most likely 
resulted 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[JJ]

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 emphasize their ideas and their ability to connect with members, rather than 
relying solely on their financial capacities. Of course, I acknowledge that 
controlling spending can be challenging. However, one potential avenue is to 
establish a transparent and accountable monitoring mechanism that tracks 
candidates' expenditures closely. 

Implementing measures to manage campaign spending could involve mandating 
candidates to furnish comprehensive breakdowns of their campaign expenses. 
These financial disclosures would then be subject to meticulous review and 
scrutiny by the proposed independent oversight committee. This committee, 
responsible for ensuring fairness and transparency throughout the entire 
election process, could conduct regular checks and audits to ensure that all 
aspects of the election remain above board. By actively monitoring the 
proceedings, this committee would instill confidence among members, assuring 
them that their votes hold significance and contribute to a genuinely equitable 
decision-making process.

Lastly, having a solid code of conduct for candidates would be a great 
safeguard. This code would make sure that candidates are playing by the rules 
and being respectful. It would prevent any shady tactics or false information 
from muddying the waters. When everyone's on the same page and sticking to fair 
play, it creates an environment where real discussions and smart decisions can 
happen.

Do you have any other suggestions for enhancing and reinforcing the Code of 
Conduct to address potential gaps?

Look forward to hearing from you ! 

Best regards,
JJ Yap
___
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

[JJ]

(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 implications for governance. Based on your computations, the fact that 
only a fraction of the total voting membership participated in the election and 
that a small percentage of members can potentially control the outcome is 
indeed a significant issue that warrants further consideration.

Expanding on your argument, let's focus on how the current system could 
potentially allow larger or extra-large members to exert disproportionate 
influence, while minority members may struggle to have a meaningful impact.

The current voting setup, with members allowed to select multiple candidates, 
inherently favors larger entities (for any members who wish to dissent, please 
feel free to do so by providing proper justification). Members with larger 
blocks have the resources to actively participate in the election by casting 
more votes across multiple candidates. This concentrated voting power can allow 
them to effectively sway the outcome in their favor.

Further, the option to select multiple candidates doesn't necessarily ensure 
proportional representation. Larger members may use their multiple votes to 
disproportionately elevate candidates that align with their interests, 
potentially marginalizing voices from smaller members.

The use of proxy voting (with strategic voting in place) amplifies the 
potential for a few members to wield significant power.  Members with more 
voting rights who can influence multiple proxy votes could easily consolidate 
voting power and strategically direct it towards their preferred candidates.

Disclaimer: To pre-empt any misunderstanding that I am portraying the EC  in a 
negative manner, and in anticipation of potential arguments claiming that the 
scenario I'm discussing is unlikely or non-existent, I want to emphasize that I 
do not intend to cast a negative perception of the EC. My focus is on exploring 
a hypothetical worst-case scenario where the EC's integrity could potentially 
be compromised in view of the above. Of course, I, along with the majority, if 
not all, members of APNIC, earnestly aspire to ensure that such a situation 
never materializes.

Best regards,
JJ Yap
___
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

[Hubert Yap]

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 of 15% of the voting rights, it does open up 
space for the formation of a syndicate to gain an undue advantage over election 
results and possibly maneuver the election process to its own advantage. To 
make matters worse, one who is privy to pertinent information such as the 
electoral rolls and the voting bloc's distributions will undoubtedly lead to 
proxy abuse where one in the know could sway votes by influencing members with 
significant voting rights to vote in their favors, or as I have said in my 
previous argument, "the Friends of APNIC".



And also imagine a world where APNIC EC is hijacked,(did not happen in the last 
25 years and I sure hope that it would not happen in the future but we cannot 
dismiss quickly as the risk is always there, especially in the present 
situations), the whole by-laws reform processes where the community has toiled 
hard in contributing valuable inputs and poured ini immense efforts in 
providing constructive feedbacks; will become a total waste and futility if 
such EC gets hijacked as they could change the by laws anytime, again. 



Sadly, no matter how great your insights and foresights were, where your 
grievances were finally made conveyed to the higher up sitting on the pedestal, 
the response that you got was none other than a patronising and indifferent 
response, "thank you for your feedback and as with other comments received, 
they are all noted and passed on"



Regards,



Hubert







 On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 18:29:08 +0800 Gaurav Kansal  
wrote ---



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 every voter casts votes for 4 
candidates) and that too when we saw a huge hue and cry in APNIC because of a 
potential EC coup attempt. 

The top 4 selected got 4-5K votes, which is roughly equal to 15% of 35004, So 
anyone who has control of only 15% voting rights can take over the EC and 
subsequently APNIC.



The main problem in APNIC EC voting is Proxy and the option of selecting more 
than one candidate for each voter. I raised this point in the Elected member's 
meeting also but wasn't able to convince the decision-makers. I also raised a 
point of extending the voting rights for NIR members (as they are also 
in-direct APNIC member and pays for the resources) which can expand and 
diversify the number of voting members and can potentially limit the coup by a 
few selected members, but this also didn't find suitable by decision-makers.



Regards,

Gaurav 



On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 07:58, Christopher Hawker  
wrote:






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 a total of 35004 
possible votes based on the number of registered members. Based on these 
figures, 94.98%
 of members cast their votes in the EC election. A rather significant number, 
and a number all members should be very proud of. Only 1757 votes were either 
abstained or not cast in time.



APNIC has processes and procedures in place to prevent what you are inferring 
could have happened. They intentionally use voting platforms that are hosted 
and managed by external independent organisations to prevent these types of 
allegations from occurring.
 There was significant interest sparked in the community, in the lead up to the 
EC elections so this is what most likely resulted in the jump.



Finally, if you are going to quote sources, do so properly and reference links 
that directly support your argument as I have, instead of just stating "source: 
bigpulse online voting". You'll find that whatever argument you have might hold 
more weight than it
 does without. Feel free to use my method of referencing as an example.



Regards,

Christopher H.



References:

[1] APNIC Executive Council Election 2023 Results - 
https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=1347334F85MguQmfUrTmJkLupT9








From: Hubert 
 Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:21 AM
 To: mailto:apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
 Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future 
 


Dear Mr. Hawker, 
 
 As conveyed to Mr. McGlinn earlier, I understood that 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Anne-vivien Paris]

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 votes (let’s say if the company can create 1000
members) by using the same money to convince 44 members than 1408.

The scenario you depicted is one possible outcome of the one member on vote
system, but similar issues can happen with the current system when there is
a variable, “a well funded company”.

Let me put it this way. A real world example.

In a country ABC, people with more assets and money have more voting
rights. Just a small portion of people but they make up significant amount
of votes.

In the same country, there are small voters with less voting rights,
because they have less assets.

Do you think this election method make sense to you in the real world case?

Billionaires and millionaires having more resources (assets) have more
voting right than the general public?

If it doesn’t, then why would it make sense when it comes to RIR election?

Regards,
Vivien


On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 at 14:03, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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 the
> possibility of a well-funded organisation paying for the membership of
> 1000's of individuals, injecting the possibility of 1000's of votes into
> the pool. One could argue that by moving to a "one member one vote" system
> it would make it a lot easier for those attempting to stack a board to gain
> the votes they need, which is not in members' best interests.
>
> Like I've said and demonstrated, The top three tiers only demonstrate
> 16.6% of the total voting power. Top four tiers are 29%. A supermajority
> already exists in the Associate, Very Small and Small tiers. The way that I
> see your argument is that it makes it easier to campaign to lower tier
> members. 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.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> --
> *From:* Vivien 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:29 PM
> *To:* Christopher Hawker 
> *Cc:* JJ ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net <
> apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and
> Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future
>
> 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 only 44
> Very large members, but 704 very small members. It is not representative
> nor fair in this sense.
>
> If a person/organization has the connection with very large organizations
> and extra large organizations, which we can imagine, are firms of
> significant size, they can easily get the votes from them, and will have a
> major impact on the final voting results. It is true that there are about
> 25,000 votes in the small members, but the effort of having them
> participate - and of them being able to work together to elect something
> that is truly representative of their interest, is extremely difficult.
>
> The current system gives room for individuals/representative/firms to vote
> for the sole interest of the larger firms. It is much easier to gather 44
> people than 704 to discuss and make a decision.
>
> Best,
> Viv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:49:30 +0900 *Christopher Hawker
> >* wrote ---
>
> 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 elections in my view it
> does not:
>
>- "[carry] the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater
>influence to specific groups".,
>- "possibility of the majority trampling upon the rights of a
>minority",
>- introduce the risk of "dominance of specific factions that could
>undermine the representation of marginalized or dissenting voices".
>
> You are correct - I contend that the above is currently not the case and
> unless there were to be a major shift in IP resource holdings, I don't
> believe will ever be the case. I disagree with the statement that weighted
> voting "potentially marginalizes individuals with fewer resources or
> 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Christopher Hawker]

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 system in my view outweigh the 
benefits, and this is further supported by the fact a particular lobby group 
attempting to stack the board with candidates in the last election, then 
leading such a big push for these changes.

I do emphasise the importance of votes from lower tiers, because these are the 
people that matter the most. The small network operators, the startups, the 
“new kid on the block” that could fundamentally change the way the internet 
operates on a global scale in as little as a decade or two. I believe that if 
EC candidates had a genuine interest or belief in their constituents it 
wouldn’t matter what membership tier they held, or which economy they were 
from, they would get out there and make their voices known (in a positive way) 
in the way current and former EC members have.

Let’s use Lu Heng’s example of the United Nations General Assembly and its 
usage of the “one member one vote” method for voting. There are a fixed number 
of nations around the world. For a new country to be formed, it generally takes 
decades (if not years) to be formally recognised as a sovereign state and thus 
be recognised by the UN. The method works well in this instance as the number 
of member states very rarely changes. With this system in a member-based 
organisation where one can effectively purchase a vote for $500.00 AUD, this 
sets a dangerous precedent allowing wealthy individuals to sponsor memberships 
in order to gain additional voting rights.

I’m all for supporting the “one member one vote” methodology, however in the 
APNIC system, I feel there’s too much of a risk. While I do respect your views 
and your rights thereto, in the case of yours being that “there doesn't appear 
to be any valid reason to oppose this change”, I have to disagree with that 
view.

Regards,
Christopher H.

On 16 Aug 2023, at 4:47 pm, tommy...@8lian.cn wrote:


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 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[tommyfok]

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

[Simon Sharwood]

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 oligarchs want to keep 
the status quo? One could say it's a form of corruption".

On a more serious note, and as an observer without a vote, I welcome discussion 
of reform purely on grounds that organisations need to evolve. I also suggest 
expanding the debate to consider other forms of elections. The Australian 
Electoral Commission runs all sorts of elections in industrial settings - what 
other ideas are out there in the APNIC-verse that are worthy of discussion.

Surely in the spirit of democracy that is at the core of this discussion, 
considering more voices is appropriate. And such discussions could perhaps also 
identify proposals that are self-serving or otherwise dangerous.
___
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

[tommyfok]

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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[tommy...@8lian.cn]

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 undergone 
significant changes, and it would be unfair to compare the current situation 
with that of three decades ago. Additionally, the number of stakeholders has 
increased substantially, making it crucial to incorporate a wider range of 
voices.

Regarding my previous points, I would like to emphasize that the current voting 
system appears to favor larger members, which may result in the suppression of 
smaller members' opinions. 

In the other words, it seem to me the current voting mechanism is more design 
for Bigwig but not for the Antizen like me.

It seems that our voices are overshadowed in this process, making it 
challenging for us to compete on an equal footing. simple maths. Extra Large 
member weighted at 64 votes, Small, very small member only got 4 and 2 votes. 
Unforturally it is the same clik into the voting website.

Regarding the last election, it serves as a notable example of potential 
collusion vote among the larger members.

In my opinion, the voting mechanism should reflect the principles of 
inclusivity and equality. The internet community thrives on a bottom-up 
approach, where every member's voice should be heard and considered. Therefore, 
I believe it is essential to adopt a system that ensures one member, one vote.

It has been 30 years, Time to change !

Tommy

> On Aug 15, 2023, at 7:33 PM, Barry Raveendran Greene  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 that smaller members are given lesser weight in their voting 
>> rights.
> 
> Many democratic and republican systems have equivalent approaches. 
> 
> My recommendation would be to go back into APNIC’s archives and learn WHY 
> today system evolved to what we have today. 
> 
> Proposing something new without understanding the three decades of 
> consultation is disrespecting your peers. 
> 
> 
> 

___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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/
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[JJ]

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/
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 the possibility of a 
well-funded organisation paying for the membership of 1000's of individuals, 
injecting the possibility of 1000's of votes into the pool. One could argue 
that by moving to a "one member one vote" system it would make it a lot easier 
for those attempting to stack a board to gain the votes they need, which is not 
in members' best interests.

Like I've said and demonstrated, The top three tiers only demonstrate 16.6% of 
the total voting power. Top four tiers are 29%. A supermajority already exists 
in the Associate, Very Small and Small tiers. The way that I see your argument 
is that it makes it easier to campaign to lower tier members. 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.

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Vivien 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:29 PM
To: Christopher Hawker 
Cc: JJ ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 

Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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 only 44 Very 
large members, but 704 very small members. It is not representative nor fair in 
this sense.

If a person/organization has the connection with very large organizations and 
extra large organizations, which we can imagine, are firms of significant size, 
they can easily get the votes from them, and will have a major impact on the 
final voting results. It is true that there are about 25,000 votes in the small 
members, but the effort of having them participate - and of them being able to 
work together to elect something that is truly representative of their 
interest, is extremely difficult.

The current system gives room for individuals/representative/firms to vote for 
the sole interest of the larger firms. It is much easier to gather 44 people 
than 704 to discuss and make a decision.

Best,
Viv






 On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 21:49:30 +0900 Christopher Hawker 
 wrote ---

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 elections in my view it does not:

  *   "[carry] the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater 
influence to specific groups".,
  *   "possibility of the majority trampling upon the rights of a minority",
  *   introduce the risk of "dominance of specific factions that could 
undermine the representation of marginalized or dissenting voices".

You are correct - I contend that the above is currently not the case and unless 
there were to be a major shift in IP resource holdings, I don't believe will 
ever be the case. I disagree with the statement that weighted voting 
"potentially marginalizes individuals with fewer resources or advantageous 
attributes, thereby jeopardizing the protection of minority rights and 
preferences" in the context of APNIC. I personally don't believe it's necessary 
to implement a "one member one vote" system, reasons why and in support of my 
contentions, I'll explain below.

As of today (15 August 2023) there are currently 9554 registered APNIC members. 
To break this down further, there are:

  *   452 Associate members (each entitled to 1 vote totaling 452 votes),
  *   4514 Very Small members (each entitled to 2 votes totaling 9028 votes),
  *   3766 Small members (each entitled to 4 votes totaling 15064 votes),
  *   586 Medium members (each entitled to 8 votes totaling 4668 votes),
  *   166 Large members (each entitled to 16 votes totaling 2656 votes),
  *   44 Very Large members (each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408 votes), and
  *   27 Extra Large members (each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728 votes).

The vast majority of members based on total number of members and total votes 
currently fall into the Very Small (47.25% of members, 25.78% of votes) and 
Small (39.42% of members, 43.01% of votes) member tiers. In both cases, if 
APNIC were to move to a "one vote per member" system, it would have no 
meaningful benefit as both tiers already hold the majority of votes in both 
circumstances.

Under the current system, 16.5% of all possible votes are represented in the 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Anne-vivien Paris]

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 only 44 Very
large members, but 704 very small members. It is not representative nor
fair in this sense.

If a person/organization has the connection with very large organizations
and extra large organizations, which we can imagine, are firms of
significant size, they can easily get the votes from them, and will have a
major impact on the final voting results. It is true that there are about
25,000 votes in the small members, but the effort of having them
participate - and of them being able to work together to elect something
that is truly representative of their interest, is extremely difficult.

The current system gives room for individuals/representative/firms to vote
for the sole interest of the larger firms. It is much easier to gather 44
people than 704 to discuss and make a decision.

Best,
Viv

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 20:50, Christopher Hawker 
wrote:

> 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 elections in my view it
> does not:
>
>- "[carry] the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater
>influence to specific groups".,
>- "possibility of the majority trampling upon the rights of a
>minority",
>- introduce the risk of "dominance of specific factions that could
>undermine the representation of marginalized or dissenting voices".
>
> You are correct - I contend that the above is currently not the case and
> unless there were to be a major shift in IP resource holdings, I don't
> believe will ever be the case. I disagree with the statement that weighted
> voting "potentially marginalizes individuals with fewer resources or
> advantageous attributes, thereby jeopardizing the protection of minority
> rights and preferences" in the context of APNIC. I personally don't believe
> it's necessary to implement a "one member one vote" system, reasons why and
> in support of my contentions, I'll explain below.
>
> As of today (15 August 2023) there are currently 9554 registered APNIC
> members. To break this down further, there are:
>
>- 452 Associate members (each entitled to 1 vote totaling 452 votes),
>- 4514 Very Small members (each entitled to 2 votes totaling 9028
>votes),
>- 3766 Small members (each entitled to 4 votes totaling 15064 votes),
>- 586 Medium members (each entitled to 8 votes totaling 4668 votes),
>- 166 Large members (each entitled to 16 votes totaling 2656 votes),
>- 44 Very Large members (each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408
>votes), and
>- 27 Extra Large members (each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728
>votes).
>
> The vast majority of members based on total number of members and total
> votes currently fall into the Very Small (47.25% of members, 25.78% of
> votes) and Small (39.42% of members, 43.01% of votes) member tiers. In both
> cases, if APNIC were to move to a "one vote per member" system, it would
> have no meaningful benefit as both tiers already hold the majority of votes
> in both circumstances.
>
> Under the current system, 16.5% of all possible votes are represented in
> the Large, Very Large and Extra Large membership tiers. While yes, moving
> to a "one member one voice" system would move 14% of total voting power to
> members in lower tiers, this 14% would still not be sufficient enough to
> make a significant shift as a change to by-laws now require a supermajority
> member vote, being two-thirds of all votes cast.
>
> Given that in both usages of the weighted and "one member one vote" voting
> systems a supermajority of all voting power exists in the Associate, Very
> Small and Small membership tiers I believe that there is already a rather
> significant and comprehensive representation of all members. If you (or
> anyone else on this list) would like a more comprehensive breakdown of
> these stats, I'm happy to share an Excel document with a full breakdown.
>
> Regards,
> Christopher H.
>
> References:
> APNIC Member List -
> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/members/
> APNIC Membership: Tiers and Voting rights -
> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/
>
> --
> *From:* JJ 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:49 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 Colleagues,
>
> Expanding upon my 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Christopher Hawker]

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 such communication.

Regards,
Christopher H.

P.S. Apologies for the double-post.

From: Christopher Hawker 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 1:38 PM
To: Hubert ; apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 

Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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, such as contacting the 
Secretariat and asking for said data. In a member-based organisation, I don't 
see any sensitivity in data such as the number of total members, further broken 
down by their respective membership tiers, both of which contain no information 
as to who the member is or who represents them.

Referencing style makes a major difference, as it helps to maintain one's 
credibility, especially in active discussions such as the one we are having 
now. You are 100% right - everyone is entitled to quote in whatever way they 
feel is appropriate. Doesn't mean that it will be credible (or even believable 
for that matter).

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.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 12:50 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

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 intellectual conversation rather than having meaningless "educated 
assumptions"? You are at liberty to have your own ways of quoting, to each his 
own, no hard and fast rules and before you make any educated assumptions next 
time, best to be clear of your stance beforehand.

Well I am not accusing APNIC for any election frauds that reeks of 
manipulation, I can be very sure that procedures that are cast in stone have 
been properly adhered to, and no voting fraud in the legal, criminal sense of 
the word has been committed. All votes no doubt did represent proper voting 
rights, but my doubts still remain unanswered, which I will rephrase again at 
the risk of sounding blunt.

Given the surge of registered voters in the recent election, which is by no 
means an organic growth, is there a slightest possibility that, somehow one who 
has access to the voters' roll, indicated to those with voting-rights the 
importance of supporting the "Friends of APNIC" and/or assiduously collected 
proxies on behalf? Well, it might not your place to answer but you could still 
try.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Christopher Hawker]

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, such as contacting the 
Secretariat and asking for said data. In a member-based organisation, I don't 
see any sensitivity in data such as the number of total members, further broken 
down by their respective membership tiers, both of which contain no information 
as to who the member is or who represents them.

Referencing style makes a major difference, as it helps to maintain one's 
credibility, especially in active discussions such as the one we are having 
now. You are 100% right - everyone is entitled to quote in whatever way they 
feel is appropriate. Doesn't mean that it will be credible (or even believable 
for that matter).

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.

Regards,
Christopher H.

From: Hubert 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 12:50 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

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 intellectual conversation rather than having meaningless "educated 
assumptions"? You are at liberty to have your own ways of quoting, to each his 
own, no hard and fast rules and before you make any educated assumptions next 
time, best to be clear of your stance beforehand.

Well I am not accusing APNIC for any election frauds that reeks of 
manipulation, I can be very sure that procedures that are cast in stone have 
been properly adhered to, and no voting fraud in the legal, criminal sense of 
the word has been committed. All votes no doubt did represent proper voting 
rights, but my doubts still remain unanswered, which I will rephrase again at 
the risk of sounding blunt.

Given the surge of registered voters in the recent election, which is by no 
means an organic growth, is there a slightest possibility that, somehow one who 
has access to the voters' roll, indicated to those with voting-rights the 
importance of supporting the "Friends of APNIC" and/or assiduously collected 
proxies on behalf? Well, it might not your place to answer but you could still 
try.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Michael Dale]

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.
___
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

[JJ]

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 the Internet in the Asia Pacific region
Assist the Asia Pacific Internet community in the development of procedures, 
mechanisms, and standards to facilitate the efficient allocation of Internet 
resources
Provide Educational opportunities to improve APNIC Members’ technical and 
policy understanding of the industry
Support the community’s development of public policies and positions that serve 
the best interests of APNIC Members and to seek legislative and regulatory 
consideration of issues of general benefit to the Members, where and when 
appropriate
Serve as the administrative, managerial, and operations arm of APNIC Pty Ltd 
and to transact all activities, functions, and affairs on behalf of, and in the 
name of, the corporation.”

By referring to APNIC’s vision, would you agree that APNIC is a member based 
organisation to ultimately serve in the best interest of the members?

Best regards,
JJ Yap
___
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

[Hubert]

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 intellectual conversation rather than having meaningless "educated 
assumptions"? You are at liberty to have your own ways of quoting, to each his 
own, no hard and fast rules and before you make any educated assumptions next 
time, best to be clear of your stance beforehand.

Well I am not accusing APNIC for any election frauds that reeks of 
manipulation, I can be very sure that procedures that are cast in stone have 
been properly adhered to, and no voting fraud in the legal, criminal sense of 
the word has been committed. All votes no doubt did represent proper voting 
rights, but my doubts still remain unanswered, which I will rephrase again at 
the risk of sounding blunt. 

Given the surge of registered voters in the recent election, which is by no 
means an organic growth, is there a slightest possibility that, somehow one who 
has access to the voters' roll, indicated to those with voting-rights the 
importance of supporting the "Friends of APNIC" and/or assiduously collected 
proxies on behalf? Well, it might not your place to answer but you could still 
try.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

> 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 
> these figures, 94.98% of members cast their votes in the EC election. A 
> rather significant number, and a number all members should be very proud of. 
> Only 1757 votes were either abstained or not cast in time.

WOW!

94.98% in a constituency represented community is powerful. Congratulations to 
the APNIC community. ___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

> 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 millions of individuals and organizations or JPNIC, which provides 
> addresses to hundreds if not thousands of ISPs in Japan?

Rephrasing & supporting what Dave is pointing out …. 

APNIC’s system evolved to represent CONSTITUENTS of the Internet. That voting 
system is NOT democratic. It is Republican with representatives of the 
constituents of the country (like JPNIC) or the constituents of the direct 
Internet service (like China Telecom).

In my mind, APNIC is NOT a ‘membership organization.’ It is a community of 
peers who each represent constituents. 

Remember, our RIR system is based on the principle of the Common Heritage of 
Mankind. IP addresses are deemed a resource for humanity. People worked hard to 
keep it OUT of the top down UN system (i.e. like the ITU and Telecom 
Regulators) and put it into the RIR system …. That has a more direct 
sensitivity to the constituent’s interest.   

Today, I’m not part of a ‘constituent repressive organization’ in APNIC. But, 
it I have an issue, I know how to express my views in a way that is aligned 
with “consultative value systems” found through out the Asia Pacific region. 

I’m looking forward to a return to that respectful consultation. 



___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

> 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 they starting doing research 
that is not aligned to their “agenda.”  
___
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

[Barry Raveendran Greene]

> 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 that smaller members are given lesser weight in their voting 
> rights.

Many democratic and republican systems have equivalent approaches. 

My recommendation would be to go back into APNIC’s archives and learn WHY today 
system evolved to what we have today. 

Proposing something new without understanding the three decades of consultation 
is disrespecting your peers. 



___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 a total of 35004 
possible votes based on the number of registered members. Based on these 
figures, 94.98% of members cast their votes in the EC election. A rather 
significant number, and a number all members should be very proud of. Only 1757 
votes were either abstained or not cast in time.

APNIC has processes and procedures in place to prevent what you are inferring 
could have happened. They intentionally use voting platforms that are hosted 
and managed by external independent organisations to prevent these types of 
allegations from occurring. There was significant interest sparked in the 
community, in the lead up to the EC elections so this is what most likely 
resulted in the jump.

Finally, if you are going to quote sources, do so properly and reference links 
that directly support your argument as I have, instead of just stating "source: 
bigpulse online voting". You'll find that whatever argument you have might hold 
more weight than it does without. Feel free to use my method of referencing as 
an example.

Regards,
Christopher H.

References:
[1] APNIC Executive Council Election 2023 Results - 
https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=1347334F85MguQmfUrTmJkLupT9


From: Hubert 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 11:21 AM
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

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 Member’s voting rights), will be able 
to confirm if the one man one vote mechanism would be vital and necessary, and 
certainly not you who presumably do not have access over such raw data. That 
explains why I was baffled at how could you infer such voting patterns by 
solely relying on the public data.

Anyway, speaking of data, here is some interesting observations (source: 
bigpulse online voting), that in APNIC 2023's elections, the vote total jumps 
by +18,568, i.e. by a lot more than the total vote in 2022 (14,679). The 
increase in vote total from 2022 to 2023 is 4 to 6 times greater than the 
increase in vote total from 2021 to 2022.

So I cannot help but to question, is it legit and legal? or is it manufactured 
and manipulated? is it really normal to have such complete anomaly in any 
election? The way I see it, such numbers does not grow methodically, but rather 
spike up the moment we start contesting and stating a wonderful grass-root 
movement.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[David Conrad]

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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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

[Hubert]

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 Member’s voting rights), will be able 
to confirm if the one man one vote mechanism would be vital and necessary, and 
certainly not you who presumably do not have access over such raw data. That 
explains why I was baffled at how could you infer such voting patterns by 
solely relying on the public data.

Anyway, speaking of data, here is some interesting observations (source: 
bigpulse online voting), that in APNIC 2023's elections, the vote total jumps 
by +18,568, i.e. by a lot more than the total vote in 2022 (14,679). The 
increase in vote total from 2022 to 2023 is 4 to 6 times greater than the 
increase in vote total from 2021 to 2022. 

So I cannot help but to question, is it legit and legal? or is it manufactured 
and manipulated? is it really normal to have such complete anomaly in any 
election? The way I see it, such numbers does not grow methodically, but rather 
spike up the moment we start contesting and stating a wonderful grass-root 
movement.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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.

From: Hubert Yap 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Fraser McGlinn 
Cc: apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net 
Subject: [apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: 
Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

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 data I was referring to was the voting 
behaviors/patterns of members up to their actual turn out rate, and not just 
simplistic total member count and how much weight they carry (which have been 
public information for the longest time).

How does one not be skeptical when a member, who presumably does not have the 
benefit of reviewing such "raw data", seems to infer such a trend from the 
figures? I have made in clear in my reply that the only time a "one man one 
vote" mechanism would be irrelevant is when one knows how many votes to be 
garnered from one particular group, or else just do not downplay the efficacy 
of such an approach.

Regards,

Hubert Yap
Legal & Compliance Officer
LARUS Limited
[cid:0.28869225360.6218490783568883472.189fbc89cd7__inline__img__src]




Email h@larus.net
Mobile/WhatsApp/Wechat +60 147361501
Address A3,11/F, TML Tower, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
Website https://www.larus.net
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This 
message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are 
notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in 
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.





 On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 07:04:23 +0800 Fraser McGlinn  
wrote ---

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 based off of actual cast votes.
It would be great if you can leave the skeptics at the door, and actually do 
some research before spreading misinformation.

Regards,
Fraser


On 16 Aug 2023 2:28 am, Hubert mailto:h@larus.net>> wrote:
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 that will come out to cast their votes, or 
else how would you be able to dismiss so quickly that our ideology "one man one 
vote" would be a futile and unnecessary attempt?

Let's get down to brass tacks, assuming the voters turnout is now at 100%, 9554 
votes being casted by total members which will then be translated to 9554 
votes, meaning you would need a 6360 votes to instigate a "coup d'etat" 
effectively, so to speak. Now put that into illustration; in the current 
regime, the combination of both small and very small members have a combined 
votes of 24,092 (which mind you, it does not satisfy the minimum two-thirds 
yet), whereas in our "one man one vote" mechanism which both aforementioned 
parties acting in concert, their combined votes will add up to be a whopping 
8,280 votes (1,920 more than two-thirds), which is more than enough to be 
supermajority.

Unless, of course, you are in the know that both members from the two groups 
have poor turn-out rates in past elections, and thereby resulting you in 
forming a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not necessity; 
while in the realms of democratic ideal and reality, such principle is the very 
cornerstone of functioning, clean and fair election, and certainly so much more 
than just a necessity.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Fraser McGlinn]

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 based off of actual cast votes.
It would be great if you can leave the skeptics at the door, and actually do 
some research before spreading misinformation.

Regards,
Fraser


On 16 Aug 2023 2:28 am, Hubert  wrote:
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 that will come out to cast their votes, or 
else how would you be able to dismiss so quickly that our ideology "one man one 
vote" would be a futile and unnecessary attempt?

Let's get down to brass tacks, assuming the voters turnout is now at 100%, 9554 
votes being casted by total members which will then be translated to 9554 
votes, meaning you would need a 6360 votes to instigate a "coup d'etat" 
effectively, so to speak. Now put that into illustration; in the current 
regime, the combination of both small and very small members have a combined 
votes of 24,092 (which mind you, it does not satisfy the minimum two-thirds 
yet), whereas in our "one man one vote" mechanism which both aforementioned 
parties acting in concert, their combined votes will add up to be a whopping 
8,280 votes (1,920 more than two-thirds), which is more than enough to be 
supermajority.

Unless, of course, you are in the know that both members from the two groups 
have poor turn-out rates in past elections, and thereby resulting you in 
forming a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not necessity; 
while in the realms of democratic ideal and reality, such principle is the very 
cornerstone of functioning, clean and fair election, and certainly so much more 
than just a necessity.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Hubert Yap]

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 data I was referring to was the voting 
behaviors/patterns of members up to their actual turn out rate, and not just 
simplistic total member count and how much weight they carry (which have been 
public information for the longest time). 



How does one not be skeptical when a member, who presumably does not have the 
benefit of reviewing such "raw data", seems to infer such a trend from the 
figures? I have made in clear in my reply that the only time a "one man one 
vote" mechanism would be irrelevant is when one knows how many votes to be 
garnered from one particular group, or else just do not downplay the efficacy 
of such an approach.



Regards,



Hubert Yap

Legal & Compliance Officer

LARUS Limited











Email h@larus.net

Mobile/WhatsApp/Wechat +60 147361501  

Address A3,11/F, TML Tower, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR

Website https://www.larus.net/

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If 
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This 
message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are 
notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in 
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
















 On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 07:04:23 +0800 Fraser McGlinn  
wrote ---



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 based off of actual cast votes.

It would be great if you can leave the skeptics at the door, and actually do 
some research before spreading misinformation.



Regards,

Fraser







On 16 Aug 2023 2:28 am, Hubert  wrote:



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 that will come out to cast their votes, or else how would you 
be able to dismiss so quickly that our ideology "one man one vote" would be a 
futile and unnecessary attempt? 
 
 Let's get down to brass tacks, assuming the voters turnout is now at 100%, 
9554 votes being casted by total members which will then be translated to 9554 
votes, meaning you would need a 6360 votes to instigate a "coup d'etat" 
effectively, so to speak. Now put
 that into illustration; in the current regime, the combination of both small 
and very small members have a combined votes of 24,092 (which mind you, it does 
not satisfy the minimum two-thirds yet), whereas in our "one man one vote" 
mechanism which both aforementioned
 parties acting in concert, their combined votes will add up to be a whopping 
8,280 votes (1,920 more than two-thirds), which is more than enough to be 
supermajority. 
 
 Unless, of course, you are in the know that both members from the two groups 
have poor turn-out rates in past elections, and thereby resulting you in 
forming a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not necessity; 
while in the realms of democratic
 ideal and reality, such principle is the very cornerstone of functioning, 
clean and fair election, and certainly so much more than just a necessity.
 
 Regards,
 
 Hubert
 ___
 APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/
 To unsubscribe send an email to mailto: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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Christopher Hawker]

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 
available. In the first link, it lists each member and their membership tier. 
Using this information, you can gauge the maximum possible number of votes, the 
maximum possible number of votes by membership tier, the total percentage of 
votes per economy, the list of data that can be extrapolated goes on. Further, 
I feel that my case is rather strong.

Under the current weighted voting system, your statement is correct in that 
there are a combined 24,092 votes between the Very Small and Small membership 
tiers. This represents 68.83% of the total votes that can be cast, which does 
indeed satisfy the two-thirds requirement (if each and every member were to 
cast all of their possible votes). As I've previously stated, under both the 
weighted and "one man one voice" systems, Very Small and Small members already 
hold a supermajority.

Are you able to share the source of your information as to poor turn-out rates? 
Let's pretend there is a current election. If you look at the total maximum 
number of votes for the Associate, Very Small, Small and Medium tiers, only 
half of the members from these tiers were to vote and every member from the 
Large, Very Large and Extra Large tiers were to vote, the lower 4 tiers would 
still represent 71.61%. of all votes cast.

In order for the Large, Very Large and Extra Large tiers to hold a 
supermajority, it would require that no one from the Associate, Very Small or 
Small tiers casts a vote, as well as no more than 360 members from the Medium 
tier and every single member from top three tiers to vote.

All information from public sources and again, happy to share an Excel 
spreadsheet with a breakdown if requested.

And finally, I was attempting to keep this discussion as factual, open-minded 
and independent of any one person, however, you had to throw in a comment that 
I've "[formed] a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not 
necessity". Claims of distortion hold no value or weight in this argument, as 
all bases for arguments stem from current, open and transparent statistics. 
It's not a perception, it's statistically not necessary and I don't see a point 
in changing the by-laws just for the sake of changing them. If, however, there 
is a justifiable reason for doing so and it holds value for a significant 
portion of members, I'm all for discussion.

Regards,
Christopher H.


From: Hubert 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 2:28 AM
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

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 that will come out to cast their votes, or 
else how would you be able to dismiss so quickly that our ideology "one man one 
vote" would be a futile and unnecessary attempt?

Let's get down to brass tacks, assuming the voters turnout is now at 100%, 9554 
votes being casted by total members which will then be translated to 9554 
votes, meaning you would need a 6360 votes to instigate a "coup d'etat" 
effectively, so to speak. Now put that into illustration; in the current 
regime, the combination of both small and very small members have a combined 
votes of 24,092 (which mind you, it does not satisfy the minimum two-thirds 
yet), whereas in our "one man one vote" mechanism which both aforementioned 
parties acting in concert, their combined votes will add up to be a whopping 
8,280 votes (1,920 more than two-thirds), which is more than enough to be 
supermajority.

Unless, of course, you are in the know that both members from the two groups 
have poor turn-out rates in past elections, and thereby resulting you in 
forming a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not necessity; 
while in the realms of democratic ideal and reality, such principle is the very 
cornerstone of functioning, clean and fair election, and certainly so much more 
than just a necessity.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Masud Rana]

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 consider putting one member one vote into the bylaw
> reform, in process towards truly democratic RIR.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 16:56, 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
>> https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/thread/7IRVAG6JWK52LWHICFGSTN2XPC2RKTWS/
>> . This resonance underscores the authentic concern and unwavering
>> dedication our esteemed members harbor regarding the reform of APNIC's
>> Bylaws. While divergent perspectives are inherent and may kindle vigorous
>> debates, it is imperative to recognize that these deliberations
>> fundamentally serve the well-being of our members and the advancement of
>> APNIC as a whole.
>>
>> With the imminent deadline for the submission of feedback and suggestions
>> pertaining to APNIC's bylaw reform, I seize this opportune moment to
>> introduce a paramount proposition – the introduction of the "One Member,
>> One Vote" paradigm within the APNIC framework. This proposition finds its
>> foundation in the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency,
>> which stand as cornerstones of our shared aspirations.
>>
>> It bears mentioning that this very principle has been wholeheartedly
>> embraced by esteemed entities in the realm of RIRs such as ARIN, RIPE NCC,
>> and AFRINIC. In aligning ourselves with the "One Member, One Vote" tenet,
>> we align with a framework that espouses democratic governance and parity of
>> representation.
>>
>> For reference, I invite your attention to the pertinent clauses adopted
>> by ARIN, RIPE NCC, and AFRINIC:
>> •   ARIN's Bylaws Section 4a
>> •   RIPE NCC's Article 16.7
>> •   AFRINIC's Bylaws Clause 12.11 (vi)
>>
>> It is, however, lamentable that our present By-laws exhibit deficiencies
>> in assuring equitability in voting rights, irrespective of the extent of
>> address block possession. This inadvertent inequity within the prevailing
>> system engenders dissimilar voting prospects and relegates the voices of
>> our smaller members to the periphery.
>>
>> The bedrock of democratic governance rests upon the principle of just
>> representation and the equitable apportionment of decision-making
>> authority. It is indeed disheartening to discern that our present construct
>> disproportionately bestows advantages upon members in possession of larger
>> address blocks, thereby engendering a concentration of influence within the
>> EC (see:
>> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/)
>> .
>>
>> Concurrently, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the meritorious
>> concerns expressed by a substantive segment of our community. The extant
>> electoral procedures perpetuate disenfranchisement, unjustly restricting
>> the democratic engagement of many members and detracting from their
>> meaningful participation in the electoral processes.
>>
>> In response to these exigencies, the proposal eloquently advocates for a
>> transition toward a unified voting system, firmly rooted in the "One
>> Member, One Vote" doctrine. This transformation is aimed at improvising the
>> existing imbalances and securing parity of influence for every voice,
>> encompassing our diverse membership. The embrace of this progressive
>> orientation is not only a reiteration of our fidelity to democratic ideals
>> but also a testament to our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and
>> transparent governance.
>>
>> The gravity of this matter underscores the collective urgency of our
>> attention. It strikes at the very heart of democratic governance within our
>> community and resonates harmoniously with the guiding principles upheld by
>> our esteemed RIR counterparts. Let us integrate our efforts in the pursuit
>> of a more equitable APNIC – a platform wherein the significance of each
>> member's voice remains unwavering, irrespective of the extent of their
>> address block.
>>
>> In light of this discourse, it is only fitting to pay heartfelt tribute
>> to the remarkable and unwavering contributions of Pavan Duggal, whose
>> exceptional dedication and visionary leadership have not only served as an
>> inspiration but have profoundly guided and motivated me in the creation of
>> this very post. His comprehensive articulation, encapsulated within the
>> proposal titled "POLICY PROPOSAL FOR EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL MEMBERS IN
>> APNIC," fervently champions the "One Member, One Vote" doctrine. For those
>> desiring deeper insight, a comprehensive exploration of his advocacy can be
>> found through 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[tommy...@8lian.cn]

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 circumstances. It is illogical that smaller members are given lesser weight in their voting rights.I humbly request the EC and all community members to seriously consider this proposal. This issue should have been addressed long ago, but it's better late than never.Best regards,TommyOn Aug 15, 2023, at 1:10 AM, 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 consider putting one member one vote into the bylaw reform, in process towards truly democratic RIR.On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 16:56, 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 https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/thread/7IRVAG6JWK52LWHICFGSTN2XPC2RKTWS/ . This resonance underscores the authentic concern and unwavering dedication our esteemed members harbor regarding the reform of APNIC's Bylaws. While divergent perspectives are inherent and may kindle vigorous debates, it is imperative to recognize that these deliberations fundamentally serve the well-being of our members and the advancement of APNIC as a whole.

With the imminent deadline for the submission of feedback and suggestions pertaining to APNIC's bylaw reform, I seize this opportune moment to introduce a paramount proposition – the introduction of the "One Member, One Vote" paradigm within the APNIC framework. This proposition finds its foundation in the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency, which stand as cornerstones of our shared aspirations.

It bears mentioning that this very principle has been wholeheartedly embraced by esteemed entities in the realm of RIRs such as ARIN, RIPE NCC, and AFRINIC. In aligning ourselves with the "One Member, One Vote" tenet, we align with a framework that espouses democratic governance and parity of representation.

For reference, I invite your attention to the pertinent clauses adopted by ARIN, RIPE NCC, and AFRINIC:
•       ARIN's Bylaws Section 4a
•       RIPE NCC's Article 16.7
•       AFRINIC's Bylaws Clause 12.11 (vi)

It is, however, lamentable that our present By-laws exhibit deficiencies in assuring equitability in voting rights, irrespective of the extent of address block possession. This inadvertent inequity within the prevailing system engenders dissimilar voting prospects and relegates the voices of our smaller members to the periphery.

The bedrock of democratic governance rests upon the principle of just representation and the equitable apportionment of decision-making authority. It is indeed disheartening to discern that our present construct disproportionately bestows advantages upon members in possession of larger address blocks, thereby engendering a concentration of influence within the EC (see: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/) .

Concurrently, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the meritorious concerns expressed by a substantive segment of our community. The extant electoral procedures perpetuate disenfranchisement, unjustly restricting the democratic engagement of many members and detracting from their meaningful participation in the electoral processes.

In response to these exigencies, the proposal eloquently advocates for a transition toward a unified voting system, firmly rooted in the "One Member, One Vote" doctrine. This transformation is aimed at improvising the existing imbalances and securing parity of influence for every voice, encompassing our diverse membership. The embrace of this progressive orientation is not only a reiteration of our fidelity to democratic ideals but also a testament to our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and transparent governance.

The gravity of this matter underscores the collective urgency of our attention. It strikes at the very heart of democratic governance within our community and resonates harmoniously with the guiding principles upheld by our esteemed RIR counterparts. Let us integrate our efforts in the pursuit of a more equitable APNIC – a platform wherein the significance of each member's voice remains unwavering, irrespective of the extent of their address block.

In light of this discourse, it is only fitting to pay heartfelt tribute to the remarkable and unwavering contributions of Pavan Duggal, whose exceptional dedication and visionary leadership have not only served as an inspiration but have profoundly guided and motivated me in the creation of this 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Hubert]

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 that will come out to cast their votes, or 
else how would you be able to dismiss so quickly that our ideology "one man one 
vote" would be a futile and unnecessary attempt? 

Let's get down to brass tacks, assuming the voters turnout is now at 100%, 9554 
votes being casted by total members which will then be translated to 9554 
votes, meaning you would need a 6360 votes to instigate a "coup d'etat" 
effectively, so to speak. Now put that into illustration; in the current 
regime, the combination of both small and very small members have a combined 
votes of 24,092 (which mind you, it does not satisfy the minimum two-thirds 
yet), whereas in our "one man one vote" mechanism which both aforementioned 
parties acting in concert, their combined votes will add up to be a whopping 
8,280 votes (1,920 more than two-thirds), which is more than enough to be 
supermajority. 

Unless, of course, you are in the know that both members from the two groups 
have poor turn-out rates in past elections, and thereby resulting you in 
forming a rather distorted perception that one man one vote is not necessity; 
while in the realms of democratic ideal and reality, such principle is the very 
cornerstone of functioning, clean and fair election, and certainly so much more 
than just a necessity.

Regards,

Hubert
___
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

[Christopher Hawker]

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 elections in my view it does not:

  *   "[carry] the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater 
influence to specific groups".,
  *   "possibility of the majority trampling upon the rights of a minority",
  *   introduce the risk of "dominance of specific factions that could 
undermine the representation of marginalized or dissenting voices".

You are correct - I contend that the above is currently not the case and unless 
there were to be a major shift in IP resource holdings, I don't believe will 
ever be the case. I disagree with the statement that weighted voting 
"potentially marginalizes individuals with fewer resources or advantageous 
attributes, thereby jeopardizing the protection of minority rights and 
preferences" in the context of APNIC. I personally don't believe it's necessary 
to implement a "one member one vote" system, reasons why and in support of my 
contentions, I'll explain below.

As of today (15 August 2023) there are currently 9554 registered APNIC members. 
To break this down further, there are:

  *   452 Associate members (each entitled to 1 vote totaling 452 votes),
  *   4514 Very Small members (each entitled to 2 votes totaling 9028 votes),
  *   3766 Small members (each entitled to 4 votes totaling 15064 votes),
  *   586 Medium members (each entitled to 8 votes totaling 4668 votes),
  *   166 Large members (each entitled to 16 votes totaling 2656 votes),
  *   44 Very Large members (each entitled to 32 votes totaling 1408 votes), and
  *   27 Extra Large members (each entitled to 64 votes totaling 1728 votes).

The vast majority of members based on total number of members and total votes 
currently fall into the Very Small (47.25% of members, 25.78% of votes) and 
Small (39.42% of members, 43.01% of votes) member tiers. In both cases, if 
APNIC were to move to a "one vote per member" system, it would have no 
meaningful benefit as both tiers already hold the majority of votes in both 
circumstances.

Under the current system, 16.5% of all possible votes are represented in the 
Large, Very Large and Extra Large membership tiers. While yes, moving to a "one 
member one voice" system would move 14% of total voting power to members in 
lower tiers, this 14% would still not be sufficient enough to make a 
significant shift as a change to by-laws now require a supermajority member 
vote, being two-thirds of all votes cast.

Given that in both usages of the weighted and "one member one vote" voting 
systems a supermajority of all voting power exists in the Associate, Very Small 
and Small membership tiers I believe that there is already a rather significant 
and comprehensive representation of all members. If you (or anyone else on this 
list) would like a more comprehensive breakdown of these stats, I'm happy to 
share an Excel document with a full breakdown.

Regards,
Christopher H.

References:
APNIC Member List - 
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/members/
APNIC Membership: Tiers and Voting rights - 
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/


From: JJ 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 7:49 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 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 by the British trade unionist 
George Howell in the 1880s. The proposal highlights key advantages over weighed 
votes, particularly in the context of APNIC, where the number of votes is 
determined by the size of address blocks, as discussed previously. These 
advantages include:

Inherent Equality and Protection of Minorities
The essence of the "One Member, One Vote" proposal reflects its literal meaning 
– every person (member) possesses equal worth, and their voices should be 
equally heard. In contrast, the current APNIC system, which employs weighed 
votes, carries the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater 
influence to specific groups. This approach potentially marginalizes 
individuals with fewer resources or advantageous attributes, thereby 
jeopardizing the protection of minority rights and preferences. The adoption of 
"One Member, One Vote" safeguards against the possibility of the majority 
trampling upon the rights of a minority, and it mitigates the potential for the 
dominance of specific factions 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[JJ]

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 by the British trade unionist 
George Howell in the 1880s. The proposal highlights key advantages over weighed 
votes, particularly in the context of APNIC, where the number of votes is 
determined by the size of address blocks, as discussed previously. These 
advantages include:

Inherent Equality and Protection of Minorities
The essence of the "One Member, One Vote" proposal reflects its literal meaning 
– every person (member) possesses equal worth, and their voices should be 
equally heard. In contrast, the current APNIC system, which employs weighed 
votes, carries the risk of perpetuating inequalities by providing greater 
influence to specific groups. This approach potentially marginalizes 
individuals with fewer resources or advantageous attributes, thereby 
jeopardizing the protection of minority rights and preferences. The adoption of 
"One Member, One Vote" safeguards against the possibility of the majority 
trampling upon the rights of a minority, and it mitigates the potential for the 
dominance of specific factions that could undermine the representation of 
marginalized or dissenting voices. I believe some of the members may contend 
that this is not the case in APNIC, however, the ULTIMATE GOAL of the proposal 
advocates for a risk management perspective and a "what if" scenario, rather 
than implying bad faith within the EC. The ultimate goal is to establish a 
system that introduces proper checks and balances (in addition to those in 
place), ultimately safeguarding the interests of all members.

Erosion of Democratic Values
The utilization of weighed votes runs the risk of compromising core democratic 
values such as fairness and equality. This compromise stems from the allocation 
of varying degrees of power to different individuals, potentially eroding the 
integrity of the democratic process and leading to perceptions of favoritism 
and inequality. On the contrary, "One Member, One Vote" ensures that all 
members are given an equal say, thereby preventing the unintentional 
introduction of biased criteria that could reinforce discriminatory attitudes 
and practices.

Encouragement of Representation
By implementing the "One Member, One Vote" proposal, we could secure a platform 
where every voice is equally valued and acknowledged. This approach is 
fundamentally different from weighed votes, which could inadvertently disregard 
the broader interests of the membership. Through the adoption of "One Member, 
One Vote," a commitment is made to ensure that each member's perspective holds 
equal significance. This serves to promote comprehensive representation and an 
environment where all voices find resonance.

Should you agree or disagree with this proposal, please feel free to comment 
below to discuss further. 

Best regards,
JJ Yap 
LARUS Limited
___
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

[Lu Heng]

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 democratic RIR.



On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 at 16:56, 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
> https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/thread/7IRVAG6JWK52LWHICFGSTN2XPC2RKTWS/
> . This resonance underscores the authentic concern and unwavering
> dedication our esteemed members harbor regarding the reform of APNIC's
> Bylaws. While divergent perspectives are inherent and may kindle vigorous
> debates, it is imperative to recognize that these deliberations
> fundamentally serve the well-being of our members and the advancement of
> APNIC as a whole.
>
> With the imminent deadline for the submission of feedback and suggestions
> pertaining to APNIC's bylaw reform, I seize this opportune moment to
> introduce a paramount proposition – the introduction of the "One Member,
> One Vote" paradigm within the APNIC framework. This proposition finds its
> foundation in the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency,
> which stand as cornerstones of our shared aspirations.
>
> It bears mentioning that this very principle has been wholeheartedly
> embraced by esteemed entities in the realm of RIRs such as ARIN, RIPE NCC,
> and AFRINIC. In aligning ourselves with the "One Member, One Vote" tenet,
> we align with a framework that espouses democratic governance and parity of
> representation.
>
> For reference, I invite your attention to the pertinent clauses adopted by
> ARIN, RIPE NCC, and AFRINIC:
> •   ARIN's Bylaws Section 4a
> •   RIPE NCC's Article 16.7
> •   AFRINIC's Bylaws Clause 12.11 (vi)
>
> It is, however, lamentable that our present By-laws exhibit deficiencies
> in assuring equitability in voting rights, irrespective of the extent of
> address block possession. This inadvertent inequity within the prevailing
> system engenders dissimilar voting prospects and relegates the voices of
> our smaller members to the periphery.
>
> The bedrock of democratic governance rests upon the principle of just
> representation and the equitable apportionment of decision-making
> authority. It is indeed disheartening to discern that our present construct
> disproportionately bestows advantages upon members in possession of larger
> address blocks, thereby engendering a concentration of influence within the
> EC (see:
> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/)
> .
>
> Concurrently, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the meritorious
> concerns expressed by a substantive segment of our community. The extant
> electoral procedures perpetuate disenfranchisement, unjustly restricting
> the democratic engagement of many members and detracting from their
> meaningful participation in the electoral processes.
>
> In response to these exigencies, the proposal eloquently advocates for a
> transition toward a unified voting system, firmly rooted in the "One
> Member, One Vote" doctrine. This transformation is aimed at improvising the
> existing imbalances and securing parity of influence for every voice,
> encompassing our diverse membership. The embrace of this progressive
> orientation is not only a reiteration of our fidelity to democratic ideals
> but also a testament to our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and
> transparent governance.
>
> The gravity of this matter underscores the collective urgency of our
> attention. It strikes at the very heart of democratic governance within our
> community and resonates harmoniously with the guiding principles upheld by
> our esteemed RIR counterparts. Let us integrate our efforts in the pursuit
> of a more equitable APNIC – a platform wherein the significance of each
> member's voice remains unwavering, irrespective of the extent of their
> address block.
>
> In light of this discourse, it is only fitting to pay heartfelt tribute to
> the remarkable and unwavering contributions of Pavan Duggal, whose
> exceptional dedication and visionary leadership have not only served as an
> inspiration but have profoundly guided and motivated me in the creation of
> this very post. His comprehensive articulation, encapsulated within the
> proposal titled "POLICY PROPOSAL FOR EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL MEMBERS IN
> APNIC," fervently champions the "One Member, One Vote" doctrine. For those
> desiring deeper insight, a comprehensive exploration of his advocacy can be
> found through this link:
> https://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0018/23328/voting-rights-proposal.txt
>
> I extend a cordial invitation to each of you to engage fervently in 

[apnic-talk] Re: Forging and Integrating Equity and Democracy: Championing 'One Member, One Vote' for APNIC's Future

[Olerato Manyaapelo]

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
> https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net/thread/7IRVAG6JWK52LWHICFGSTN2XPC2RKTWS/
> . This resonance underscores the authentic concern and unwavering
> dedication our esteemed members harbor regarding the reform of APNIC's
> Bylaws. While divergent perspectives are inherent and may kindle vigorous
> debates, it is imperative to recognize that these deliberations
> fundamentally serve the well-being of our members and the advancement of
> APNIC as a whole.
>
> With the imminent deadline for the submission of feedback and suggestions
> pertaining to APNIC's bylaw reform, I seize this opportune moment to
> introduce a paramount proposition – the introduction of the "One Member,
> One Vote" paradigm within the APNIC framework. This proposition finds its
> foundation in the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and transparency,
> which stand as cornerstones of our shared aspirations.
>
> It bears mentioning that this very principle has been wholeheartedly
> embraced by esteemed entities in the realm of RIRs such as ARIN, RIPE NCC,
> and AFRINIC. In aligning ourselves with the "One Member, One Vote" tenet,
> we align with a framework that espouses democratic governance and parity of
> representation.
>
> For reference, I invite your attention to the pertinent clauses adopted by
> ARIN, RIPE NCC, and AFRINIC:
> •   ARIN's Bylaws Section 4a
> •   RIPE NCC's Article 16.7
> •   AFRINIC's Bylaws Clause 12.11 (vi)
>
> It is, however, lamentable that our present By-laws exhibit deficiencies
> in assuring equitability in voting rights, irrespective of the extent of
> address block possession. This inadvertent inequity within the prevailing
> system engenders dissimilar voting prospects and relegates the voices of
> our smaller members to the periphery.
>
> The bedrock of democratic governance rests upon the principle of just
> representation and the equitable apportionment of decision-making
> authority. It is indeed disheartening to discern that our present construct
> disproportionately bestows advantages upon members in possession of larger
> address blocks, thereby engendering a concentration of influence within the
> EC (see:
> https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/tiers-and-voting-rights/)
> .
>
> Concurrently, it is incumbent upon us to acknowledge the meritorious
> concerns expressed by a substantive segment of our community. The extant
> electoral procedures perpetuate disenfranchisement, unjustly restricting
> the democratic engagement of many members and detracting from their
> meaningful participation in the electoral processes.
>
> In response to these exigencies, the proposal eloquently advocates for a
> transition toward a unified voting system, firmly rooted in the "One
> Member, One Vote" doctrine. This transformation is aimed at improvising the
> existing imbalances and securing parity of influence for every voice,
> encompassing our diverse membership. The embrace of this progressive
> orientation is not only a reiteration of our fidelity to democratic ideals
> but also a testament to our commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and
> transparent governance.
>
> The gravity of this matter underscores the collective urgency of our
> attention. It strikes at the very heart of democratic governance within our
> community and resonates harmoniously with the guiding principles upheld by
> our esteemed RIR counterparts. Let us integrate our efforts in the pursuit
> of a more equitable APNIC – a platform wherein the significance of each
> member's voice remains unwavering, irrespective of the extent of their
> address block.
>
> In light of this discourse, it is only fitting to pay heartfelt tribute to
> the remarkable and unwavering contributions of Pavan Duggal, whose
> exceptional dedication and visionary leadership have not only served as an
> inspiration but have profoundly guided and motivated me in the creation of
> this very post. His comprehensive articulation, encapsulated within the
> proposal titled "POLICY PROPOSAL FOR EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL MEMBERS IN
> APNIC," fervently champions the "One Member, One Vote" doctrine. For those
> desiring deeper insight, a comprehensive exploration of his advocacy can be
> found through this link:
> https://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0018/23328/voting-rights-proposal.txt
>
> I extend a cordial invitation to each of you to engage fervently in this
> pivotal dialogue, and through your participation, contribute your
> invaluable insights. Together, our collective endeavor possesses the
> transformative capacity to mold APNIC into an embodiment of the principles
> of equity, transparency, and shared opportunity.
>
> Thank you.
>