On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 15:45, Gaurav Kansal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 25-Aug-2022, at 12:52, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi Gaurav, > Thanks for your comments > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 16:31, Gaurav Kansal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We should avoid un-limited number of terms for any member in any role, >> like max 2 consecutive tenure for any post and a cool off period of 2-4 >> years for next tenure and have a max limit on an individual member tenures. >> > > NRC is for review of all elected community nominations. For this > particular suggestion, you have to change SIG guidelines, NRO-NC election > procedure and also the APNIC bylaws. This change is out of the scope of NRC > but your point is taken and NRC can publish the number of years a > candidate has already served on a particular seat. > > For NomCom or NRC, or whatever for this proposal is, don’t it need the > same approvals, which are required for bringing the reforms in the current > election processes ? As per the timeline/stages section, it look like this > document/proposal is pushed from the top to the bottom and set timelines > are very stringent. Don’t it be better if we have the election and voting > rights reforms before this NRC/NomCom ? > As I mentioned in my previous comments, if you want to change voting mechanism ("voting rights" doesn't make sense in this discussion) then there are 3 separate forums for that, SIG guidelines can be changed at SIGs, NRO-NC election procedure require a separate change proposal and for EC you need to change APNIC bylaws. If you think that has to be done in parallel then I would suggest you organise a BoF in the upcoming APNIC54 and share it with community members and if there is a consensus from the community then a working group can be formed to make that happen. Otherwise you can come up with a proposal and share it with all SIGs and ask for their opinion. Also, what’s the general trend in APNIC w.r.t. proposals ? Is it top-down > approach or bottom-up approach, as this proposal is first reviewed by the > top and then shared with the community, so is it a general trend in APNIC ? > I am considering that APNIC doesn’t think that elected members or the APNIC > leaders are the only wise members in this region. > On your point about top-down approach, I'm not sure what made you think like that? If it was a top-down process then you would have heard about the formation of NRC by now with TOR set in stone whereas right now we are talking about a proposal, an idea which some of the community members (including me) have been discussing for last few years and finally got the chance (thanks to lockdowns) to put this into wordings, primary discussion was with all the chairs/co-chairs of SIGs, NRO-NC, IRC, APIX and APNOG members - this is what we call elected leadership group, a big enough group of community representatives who are active and willing to provide feedback. This document is still a proposal and no decision has been made yet. Set timelines - yeah because we have a BoF at APNIC54 so its better to collect as much opinion/comments from the mailing list so we can address it before the BoF and have a constructive discussion there. I hope that helps clarify your misconception of top-down approach. > > > >> This will help in bringing the new blood into the system and will be able >> to achieve geographical diversity , plus a rotation will be able to help us >> in catching the flaws/frauds in the very early stages. >> > > If you read the document then you will understand how we are supporting at > least the geographical diversity in the NRC. While I do support your point > of geographical diversity, to make it clear Diversity is not about > geography only and we have to make APNIC more inclusive at every level. > > from geographical pov > EC - 7 members representing 7 different economies > NRO NC - 3 members 3 different economies > SIG - Routing Security - 3 members 3 economies > SIG - Cooperation - 2 members 2 economies > SIG - NIR - 2 members 2 economies > SIG - Policy - 3 members 3 economies > > Out of these 20 elected members there are at least 15 different economies > represented here out of 56 economies of APNIC service region. > > We have to think and achieve the resilience so that we should be in a same >> position of AFRINIC. >> > > Any further suggestions to improve the NRC? > > > In one of the discussions, I proposed for building the appropriate > resilience at various levels of the core institutions of APNIC in order to > prevent any major disruptions to the operations of APNIC. To start with we > can explore the feasibility of setting up a regional office of APNIC in any > other member country and distribute some of the resources of APNIC across > different geographies, So that any legal/regulatory actions of one host > country doesn't bring the operations of APNIC to a standstill. > I'm not sure what sub-regional offices will do for the resiliency of APNIC. There are 7 NIRs right now which get the resources from APNIC, do their own policy work and provide resources to their members and collect local fees but if you want to set up multiple regional Internet registries then for that you have to follow ICP-2. Anyways, this topic is mostly related to the operations of how RIR works which is out of the scope of this discussion. > > Unfortunately, I didn’t get views of APNIC on this. > > Thanks, > Gaurav Kansal > > Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
