Hi Randy, Yes, I prefer this way to discuss and improve it :-)
Certainly, the openness is very important, and that is the reason why I didn't add more conditions as other regions are doing. <<https://www.apnic.net/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/other-rirs>> I just added voters should be registered participants including remote ones, and I don't think it will be a barrier since there is no charge for remote participants. In addition, we need to consider a balance between openness and equality. Certainly, we cannot secure the equality only by asking registration for voters, but at least we have more information about who have voting rights for each election. (I'm not saying voting results, like who voted to whom) Currently, we don't have any information about who was eligible voter, who voted actually, etc. Without these information, I'm afraid we cannot secure the equality even when we have a concern. Regards, Matt 2016-10-04 23:41 GMT+09:00 Randy Bush <[email protected]>: > let me put it another way. > > we say very broadly, to the entire world, that the policy sig is open, > open, open. so on what basis should we restrict who can vote? > > randy >
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
