Transcript: Membership Petition BoF


Due to the difficulties capturing a live speaker's words, it is possible this transcript may contain errors and mistranslations. APNIC accepts no liability for any event or action resulting from the transcripts.

Wednesday, 25 August 2010, 17:30-19:00 (UTC +10)

JAMES SPENCELEY: OK. Well, this is a great turnout for a BoF. I don't remember a BoF with this many people. A positive sign.

So I created an agenda which was posted to the APNIC talk mailing list. This BoF is sort of evolved over time. Originally came about because some very good policy proposals, or proposals or presentations were presented to the SIC policy forum, but were rejected as being out of scope for that forum. We identified that we needed an area, or an event at the APNIC meeting to be able to discuss some of these changes.

And that was why

SKEEVE STEVENS: Do we have permission to record audio?

JAMES SPENCELEY: Yes, absolutely. I think it is recorded anyway, as part of the meeting. It has evolved. We have decided to discuss basic overall changes to the membership bylaws and the structure of APNIC.

As well as present the presentations, the three presentations which is fixing a maximum period of two terms for EC members. As I have conflict in that, I will hand over to the co-chair.

The second proposal is for a government advisory committee for APNIC. And then the third is the proposal for equal voting rights for all APNIC members.

Before we get into the individual presentations, I thought I would just do a little bit of research ahead of this BoF and present some ideas on the differences between policy and Member changes.

So the current policy development process - the charter of the Policy SIG is to develop policy and procedures relating to the management and use of Internet resources by APNIC and NIRs in the region. So obviously the Policy SIG is not the forum to change the corporate structure of APNIC.

This forum, the policy forum, includes the broader communities and not just the APNIC Members. That is an important differentiation.

What we are talking about today is changes that affect only the Members.

That policy process has evolved and become more robust over time. Ten years ago, it was a very much more fluid process. People would present their thoughts. And then today we have a very strong development process, and structure around those changes.

So today we are looking at changes to the corporate structure of APNIC. And this is the first time we have had proposals to change that structure. So this is the start, really, of developing a robust process for changes to the membership structure.

A change to the APNIC bylaws is a formal change to the structure of APNIC, which itself is documented in the bylaws. As I say, it is different to the policy development process. But what I did is I did some research on the bylaws and came up with what the bylaws say about amending the bylaws.

To amend or repeal these bylaws or amend or review any decision of the Executive Council shall require affirmative vote of two thirds of the votes of the entire membership as paid-up 48 hours before the meeting.

Obviously to change anything to do with the bylaws and accurately gauge the member input need to have a formal vote. I believe the only way to do that would be to have both online and member meeting votes.

What we don't have is a way that clearly identifies how a Member puts that request for a vote up to the Members. And that is what I think I will touch on now.

The bylaws include the requirement for amendments, and it is possible to amend the bylaws. That is defined as a petition. We came up with a term, a "membership petition". I think it is an accurate description. One Member petitioning other Members to change the relevant bylaw or structure.

I thought it would be useful for non-English speakers and to avoid any confusion, to find what I think is the most appropriate definition, or dictionary definition of petition.

It is a written document signed by a large number of people demanding some form of action from government or other authority. So I think it is safe to say in this case is the action is to create a formal vote for the Members, to provide that forum.

So a Member can petition for a vote to be cast on their proposal.

So I wanted to highlight that we are going to have those two different terms. " Policy" will be reserved for addressing policy and used by the SIG policy. A Member request for a former change to the structure or change affecting each and every Member is considered a Member Petition.

Any changes proposed by a Member must have the support of the majority of the Members. Not the EC or a small subset. This is a valid point. The membership is very, very large. So if we want to affect a change that is going to make an effect on a large number of Members, then the majority of Members need to believe in that change and support it via a vote.

It is not for the EC to decide that. So this is really Members attempting to convince Members to change the bylaws.

Having said, that I would like to talk about the role of the EC.

Which is the Members elected to the APNIC Executive Council to represent the membership as a whole. We don't represent the Member we are elected from or Members from our country. Or any individual group of Members. It is for the membership that is the whole.

The EC is responsible to conduct APNIC business in an efficient and organized manner. That is the primary concern that the operations of APNIC is not disrupted.

Any Member petition should have the support of a significant number of Members before consuming APNIC resources by formal voting. If we are going to put a formal vote using the online system, contacting all of the Members, there should be a reasonable support base for that change before it actually consumes the resources of the Secretariat and obviously of the Members themselves.

I think typically it is the responsibility of a petitioner to gain the required support. It is not the Secretariat or the EC's responsibility to garner support or provide a way for those petitioners to get their support. But it is the responsibility of the EC and Secretariat then to provide the mechanism to vote on those changes.

So it begs the question: What level of support should a petition require to be put to a formal vote? I did some digging into the bylaws. It is covered by what is called the Special Meeting. So if a Member wants to make a change, the way they would do that is to call a Special Meeting of APNIC. Again, by way of a petition.

It will be signed by no less than one quarter of the votes of the entire membership. This is the best guideline of gaining enough Member support to convene a vote put to the Members.

One thing we have to avoid is any change any Member wants to put up being put to a vote of all Members. You can imagine that if somebody wanted to change the colour of the APNIC walls in the office, they could consume hours of Member meetings, and APNIC could grind to a halt.

So with that, we have the three petitions: Fixing a maximum term for the ECs, which I will call a speaker on after we have discussed some of these processes for change.

Any comments from the floor or from the jabber just on what we think is a positive way to effect this change or process?

PAVAN DUGGAL: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Pavan Duggal, I'm the President of Cyberlaw Asia and one of the people who proposed one of the proposals. I would like to congratulate APNIC for having congregated this BoF. And it is a wonderful opportunity in all in the process of making history. And I think history is made by people like you and me.

Having said that, the opening comments made by the honorable Chair have indeed been based upon research made upon bylaws. However, none of the opening comments, with utmost respect, really dealt with BoF, Birds of a Feather.

I can see the agenda of today's evening, this is a Birds of a Feather meeting. And having said that this is a Birds of a Feather meeting, we as members of the member of the community of APNIC, would be governed by what is written in the APNIC bylaws and also in the memorandums of understanding and articles of association of APNIC.

Having said that, the concerns are having stated my initial observation is that there is not a single comment made by the honorable chair as to what and how the present BoF will be done. Instead, an effort is being made to look at the direction of coming up with some special procedures put into Membership Petition.

My detailed research analysis of the existing APNIC rules, bylaws, does not really bring me to any support in support of the petition that there's something known as a Membership Petition.

But, having said that, that is a nomenclature that honorable chair has presented.

My suggestion and initial proposals are, that this being a Birds of a Feather meeting should be conducted like a Birds of a Feather meeting, and should not be allowed to be given a colour of a constitutional meeting. We are here as part of a process. It is a documented form of process and there are certain rules and regulations which govern the constitution, the conduct and the manner of proceeding ahead with the BoF. My humble and respectful submission to this honorable chair would be that let this BoF be treated as a BoF and be not treated as a BoF and not be treated as a resolution for coming up with a special petition or a membership petition proceedings.

Unfortunately, at the time, when we are talking, there is not a single word in the APNIC bylaws in the rules of regulations as also in the memorandums and articles of association of APNIC of what the honorable chair has proposed.

Let this continue as a BoF, number 1. We want to see this morning that there have been certain changes that have been proposed in the language of the APNIC website regarding the BoF. There was particular language given pertaining to BoF till yesterday evening and we have seen the change of language today, which talks of proactive effort on the part of the election of the Executive Committee to go ahead and provide for an MPP process.

While I would like to congratulate the Executive Council of APNIC for the purposes of having a proactive vision in this direction, my humble submission is that these issues are completely separate. The three proposals worked with APNIC well before the date and times stipulated for filing of these proposals, having been there on the part of systems of APNIC, these were filed with APNIC and consequently these need not be confused with the concept of an MPP, which is the membership petition process, or whatever.

As the language itself says, these need to run parallel. I would welcome this exercise. I would like to state that let these three proposals be discussed and the learnings of these proposals be incorporated in a broader future framework for MPP, which the honorable EC is proposing for the future. But at no point of time should the Birds of a Feather be converted into nomenclature of a meeting or congregation which does not have a sanction either of APNIC bylaws or the memorandum or articles of association. Having said that, my humble submission would still be that as it has been proactively mentioned on the website of APNIC, that both these things need to go parallel, I think the very fact that these process need to go parallel indicate that one process would not impede, stop, or impair any manner or come in the way of the other.

I think both of these processes should be seen as simultaneous processes but that may not, with my humble opinion, necessarily be meant to interpret that the MPP process will take paramount significance with the difference or in connection to or in conjunction or association, or nexus with the three proposals.

Having said that, I would, while this honorable chair was mentioning about the opening comments, there was a reference to amendment of bylaws. And having said that, I went through the bylaws and I would like to submit that the three proposals, or the three proposals that I'm looking at, is not talking about amendment of bylaws. I will most humbly request for the consideration of this honorable gathering and the honourable chair that the proposals be not over-generalized. Let the proposal be examined. There was a reference to some special committee or whatever. Or a special general body meeting. I think the membership community of APNIC is a distinguished group of individuals who have distinguished achievements through their careers.

They are all familiar with the objects, goals, perspectives, and the manner and procedures of activities of APNIC as an institution.

Having said that, and considering the fact that the legal documentation of APNIC is already on the record of the website, my humble submission would be that while we continue to discuss on one parallel process off the MPP, however, the MPP is itself a historical baby. Has just been conceived, not yet been born. That historical baby should not be a waiting point. There are some urgent issues which require consideration. The honorable community of APNIC, which is in the form of these proposals. My suggestion is let attention be made to the merits or demerits, or whatever, of those proposals. And whatever the learnings that are coming thereof should be then incorporated in a broader MPP process. We are very, very clear that this MPP process is history being created.

And that being so, all efforts should be done in such a manner so to ensure that the appropriate bylaws, articles of association, and memorandums association of APNIC are appropriately complied with and do not in any way contradict or hinder in any manner whatsoever with the existing jurisprudence of these principles as are established on the record of APNIC. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

JONNY MARTIN: I think this first part of the agenda is a useful thing to look at. There are a lot of people in the community that I've talked to, myself included - well, I didn't talk to myself, but! I will include myself in this group, that didn't know what the process was to make a fundamental change to the way APNIC membership works and that sort of thing.

I think that is a really useful thing to do. Now, if we want to treat this as just a typical BoF, then I'm sure this is going to go exactly the way that some mailing list discussions go - around in circles and there will be actually no outcome.

And I think that will be worse than actually not doing it at all. So I quite like the way you have put this here, and I think we should spend a little bit of time, if there is any further questions, talking about that and then we can move on and have a look at each of the individual proposals.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Thank you, Jonny, we want to discuss these in parallel. There will be time devoted to the individual proposals as well as the process. But we felt as the EC, this is something that needed to be discussed openly at a Member meeting and this is obviously the best opportunity in terms of getting Members together in a Birds of a Feather group.

Any further comments?

SATYA GUPTA: The change of agenda actually, yeah, it is very good step as mentioned by both Members. But, actually, there is already a provision in the APNIC framework how to deal with the BoF proposals, without waiting for the outcome of proposal number 1, without going through these changes required, as you mentioned, that this will be helpful. That is a fact, but there is a way out, even in absence of that formal process of dealing with the Member petitions, and that is if there interest group which comes here and makes a proposal and majority feels that, yes, it is very good for the community as a whole, and, yes, it is also eminent and it is good for the committee to act on it on an agency basis. If that situation is there, then there is already a provision that such recommendation of the BoF commission, especially you and the co-chairman, they both can recommend that, yes, it can be acted upon to the next level, either by sending it to the EC or by sending it to the AMM, or for acting upon it in the manner it has in the implementation.

So I personally feel that provision is already there. It may not be everything very much in black and white. But, yes, I think it is there. And so at least for these three petition presentations, we should have an open mind, as suggested by the Member, Mr Pavan Duggal, and, in parallel, we can always think of having a structural process in a formal manner so that, if such things are likely to come - and normally they will be coming, because we are here living in a very dynamic world, and Internet technology itself is very dynamic.

So such kind of petitions are likely to come more and more and more, and they are good for our survival, growth, and development. So I personally feel we should be having an open mind on these proposals, without linking it with step number 1 in any manner. Thank you.

OLE JACOBSON: Two concrete suggestions: add point three to the suggestion, which is the next steps, you know, what will be the outcome of this meeting. When we have BoFs in the IETF, they are basically to discuss whether or not a working group should be formed on a particular topic. And, you know, the outcome is sometimes no, this is not an item that we want to work on. Or yes, we go off write a charter and form a working group to work on a particular thing. I guess in this case, maybe refinement of the proposals or whatever.

Second suggestion, concrete suggestion, limit speeches to two minutes! Thank you!

SKEEVE STEVENS: James, I am interested in the proposals. But I want to understand what context the proposals are in. If we are talking about changes to the bylaws and special meetings and things like that, what is the purpose of the proposals at the moment unless we have a framework of how they can actually be applied to anything? Frankly, I'm not interested in hearing anything until I understand what can be next and what framework they can be done next. What is the point, unless we know if we need a special Member meeting for something to happen, because I would like to hear them but what is the point of hearing them? I need to understand that.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Sure, and I think that is why we are discussing the changes, an overview and open discussion about the process before we enter into talking about the proposals themselves.

Unless we, as a group, get comments back on how we want to progress this, we can certainly jump straight in and discuss these proposals, but, you know, then what are the next steps?

Look, I tend to agree with Skeeve, that is a positive to discuss this.

If there is any more comments?

PAVAN DUGGAL: Mr Chairman, I'd just like to point out that the - as for the information available on the APNIC website, this was a Birds of a Feather that was convened by the Executive Council, by the EC, for the specific subject of three proposals.

We have seen in the last 24 hours an addition to the agenda of the BoF. And this has been done within - without appropriate notice to anyone. Maybe it is a part of a proactive process, but I would humbly suggest that this process needs to be delineated from the proposals for SIG. Because if we already come up with various propositions at the nth hour, Birds of a Feather are meant to be people of similar minds, on a subject, for a particular portion, as the honorable chair himself pointed out - appropriate notice has toe be given to all the Members, should they be impacted.

So, once a notice for particular BoF has been issued for a particular subject, adding more things in the so-called agenda of the BoF which have got a much bigger ramification than the smaller object of the three proposals, my humble submission is that these need to be delineated, and even otherwise 24 hours is too much of a short notice period of time, by any stretch of the imagination, considering that knowledge is light for this kind of opinion, of MPP process to get passed. Thanks.

JONNY MARTIN: This is a Birds of a Feather. Birds of a Feather is, by definition, an informal meeting, doesn't even need to have a agenda, doesn't have to have notice put it out. It could be somebody organizing it 15 minutes before the thing starts. The idea of this is to both spread a bit of understanding and get opinions from more people than you get in other forums, such as mailing lists or meetings and specific locations. Alright? That is what we are here to do. Hopefully those people who are pushing for change can take some of that feedback and use that to change the formulation of their proposals or garner a bit more support for them.

I don't understand what the last speaker was actually trying to convey.

JAMES SPENCELEY: This is an important - the process that we follow from here is just as important as the presentations, because we need to know what to do with the presentations. You know, assuming that there is support and the Members want to act on them. Having said that, I will happily move on to our first presenter.

Fixing a maximum period of two terms for an EC member - I would welcome the presenter.

I will step down.

NARESH AJWANI: Can we change the terminology. I would like you to be here for some time. We can start with the third point. In an opportunity like this, the proposal of it is that I shall be chairing. He can continue for other two. In the last, we can take this up. When you move out as a Chair.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Petition 3, by Mr Duggal is it?

PAVAN DUGGAL: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, honorable chair and co-chair, friends.

There is a slight change of schedule. I have been asked to come in early.

My proposal here is a policy proposal for equal voting rights for all Members in APNIC.

And I proceed to go ahead and give the reasons of what I'm proposing, what is this all about and how it is likely to pan out.

This is just about me.

This is a proposal to introduce equal voting rights for all Members in APNIC.

The focus is on equal voting rights as compared to proportional or any other kinds of voting rights. Equal voting rights - that is what the details of the proposal is - should be given to each of the Members of APNIC, because each Member has got the right to determine the general policies for fulfiling the objects of APNIC, which have been prescribed in part II of article 2. Once this organization has come up with certain principles, certain objective, the Members that empowered to proceed ahead, and fulfil those objectives, and this particular proposal is in synch which is already written in part II of article 2.

This proposal is basically aiming and seeking to have equal voting rights for all Members. When one looks at historical perspective, one sees that from the beginning of inception of APNIC till today, the concentration of the decision-making authority in the hands of a few Members has happened. This is an accident of history. But this can also be attributed to a proportional voting mechanism, and this has evolved and manifested itself into a very skewed representation pattern.

Having one vote per Member is likely to help broad-base the EC representation, encouraging far more wider representation from a variety of stakeholders. It augers very well for democratic governance. It is one of the principles to which APNIC is committed to - democracy is transparency and accountability. And I think this particular proposal aims to serve the basic objects behind these lofty principles.

Of course, the proposal wants to bring about a change, which makes the election procedure to the EC more transparent, unbiased, democratic, and responsive to the needs of the Members. This proposal is primarily seen from the perspective of the entire community, because we see a portion of the community locked out. The community portion who want to have aspirations to be a part of the broader EC movement of the EC revolution but are locked out due to the extremely disproportional voting system that is currently happening.

If you look at article 5 of APNIC, each Member has been given various rights, including the right to elect EC Members. Now, if a right has been given by a non-profit transparent democratic organization, it has to be given in its totality to all Members. Can it not be seen to be one step forward, three steps forward.

When you look at Article 5 of the bylaw says that the Members shall determine the general policies for fulfilling the objects of the APNIC prescribed in bylaw 2 above.

So this is what the overarching broad principle is, which is empowering the Members to go ahead and determine the broad general policies.

If you look at the current bylaws, there is no provision for the principle of one vote per Member, irrespective of the size of the address block. It is all based on a tier membership tier policy, and your number of votes is dependent on which tier you fall in. The voting rights are disproportionate, highly skewed and do not encourage participation, for which APNIC stands for if you look on the APNIC office business cards.

On the back of the visiting cards is the slogan is that it is a not for profit industry, self-regulatory organization open to participation by all participants.

So, clearly, whether it is going to be open - it has to be open in totality. That would mean giving real empowerment in the hands of the community at large. And the proportionate voting mechanism will, of course, contribute to this entire process.

Now, when we look at the current election process framework, we find that Members are having large address blocks are having more votes and have been, in various positions of authority, as members of EC since inception.

This is a part of documented history of APNIC and is well on the record of the case.

The present system effectively blocks the legislative aspirations of a large segment of small voters to the contest and the ability to win a place in the context.

My decision is that democratic governance is best served when the principle of equality and equal opportunity for all prevails.

The moment to have a proportional voting system, which has been in existence for the last 12 years, the equal playing field evaporates.

Within the APNIC community, the satisfaction has been expressed in several quarters. And that is documented on the way this election process that have been followed in the last 12 years.

The APNIC currently has proportional voting system. The election of the EC is conducted by the Executive Council.

Here is a fantastic proposition of a party being a judge of its own cause. You - your elections conducted by you. It is one of those things which to which jurisprudence is completely alien across the world.

The present proposal seeks the replacement of the proportional voting system of APNIC, with single voting system.

Of course, when one goes to the various archives that exist on the website of APNIC, one does see various dissent regarding the unfair and non-transparent nature of election process regarding giving Members with large address blocks more number of votes that has been followed.

Of course, the basic question that this proposal is putting across for the entire community to consider is, well, it is challenging the way in which the character of voting for EC election takes place within APNIC. Now, is that something that an international, transparent, well reputed organization like APNIC is wants to stand for, be associated with, in the public perception? Or is it something that it wants to proactively correct, as basically an accident of history but is corrected by the prudence, wisdom, and experience of the general community as a whole.

When you look at various RIRs, you find that there is already support for what this proposal is talking about. There is AfriNIC which already has a system of one member one vote. There is ARIN, which also has a single voting strength.

Of course, there is also RIPE-NCC, which says that each Member of the association shall have one vote. All these RIRs are already following a particular process of a single voting system.

And that being so, there is no logical reason why APNIC should stand up as something, as some organization which is not doing what the world is doing. The flow of technology and the flow of jurisprudence is going in one direction. APNIC should not be seen to be following against the tide. Of course, all these RIRs do realize that these proportional voting strength is against equality, which is the basic sense of democracy.

I think there is something wrong with the display of this presentation.

I believe - and that is my humble submission - to the right to equal vote is something that is already well established. Everybody sitting here in this room is well aware of the existing international jurisprudence on this subject. It is not just one or two, it is oodles of legal judicial precedence already in this regard. There are significant international treaties which enshrine the citizens' claim to universal and equal suffrage.

I have given a list of some of these which are supporting the system of single proportional vote. Whether it is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Governance of Civil and Political Rights, the 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution number 46/137, dated 17 December 1991 for enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections.

European human rights instruments on the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

The 1990 Charter of Paris for a new Europe, which is a CSCE summit for human rights on democracy and rule of law.

The 1990 document of the Copenhagen meeting of the conference on the human dimension of the CSCE.

American human rights instruments.

The 1969 American Convention on Human Rights.

The 1994 inter-parliamentary union declarations on criteria for free and fair elections. These are all international instruments that have happened in all parts of the world, including in this very continent where we are holding this meeting.

The 1991 Commonwealth Harare Declaration, the WTO voting system.

The International Labour Conference, the World Health Organization, IMP, and sovereign equality principle in international law - it is something that everybody is well aware of. In fact in your respective countries, when you go ahead and vote, you only get one vote.

This very country which we have come, the host, there have been elections, and in this very elections, each person was given one vote for the purposes of expressing his or her will of political choice.

Now, if that is the principle that is existing in the land in which APNIC is incorporated, it is highly not understandable as to how this particular proportional voting system continues to be perpetrated year after year after more than a decade and two years.

If that is not sufficient, let's look at the ISME election and voting procedures, which is 2010 of the International Society for Music Education.

The Trusteeship Council.

The Organization for Security and Corporation in Europe.

And the 30,

These are various things that I've just highlighted, which are already part of the public domain, which is there for everyone to see.

I will quickly list one of the advantages of the proposal. It makes the election process more transparent, or accountable, shows wider participation, answers democracy within APNIC, removes biases and prejudices, if any.

Instils faith in the Member community.

Encourages voter participation, eliminates voter distinction, eliminates any kind of discrimination of any kind, whatsoever. There are various advantages even otherwise of the single voting system, which is that a person can only cast the number of votes of the number of people standing for. Three vacancies, three votes. It is in synch with international legal jurisprudence.

There are tremendous documented disadvantages. It is complicated. It is costly and time-consuming to administer and count. And by allowing minor parties and candidates with seats, it promotes instability in the election body. The balance of power can be held by a small number of Members elected by a small minority of the electorate. Of course, such approach has not given balanced representation to the EC.

The principle of one Member, one vote would be a further tool to create further greater effective democracy and transparency within APNIC.

It will help instil the faith in the Members who have been dissatisfied with the election process followed to now. As a result, it will enhance the participation of the Members, and would make them more responsive to the processes of APNIC.

It will regulate the commitment of APNIC fundamental principles to equality, equal representation, absence of discrimination of any kind, whatsoever.

It will help recreate once again faith in the principles of natural justice, good conscious, and equity.

If you actually implement this, this will help further recreate the principle of equal voting followed already in a number of NIRs. This will help in the overall strengthening of the NIRs and bring harmonization of approach to the fundamental principle of equality and absence of discrimination of all NIRs.

This is APNIC, unfortunately, it is currently standing out in an uncomplimentary light when it comes to stick to the principle of proportional voting.

I think implementing this proposal will help to further unify NIRs in the harmonizing approach while dealing with equality in the absence of discrimination.

It is going to become far more once again a salutation to the basic principle of governance, of democracy, it will cause a very healthy working environment and this could become an effective model as part of overall Internet governance phenomenon.

I'd like to just conclude by saying this proposal is for the community. And it is providing a wonderful opportunity for APNIC to rectify the existing shortcomings, glaring shortcomings, in its existing electoral processes. This proposal, when accepted, would help to demonstrate the redirection of APNIC towards democracy, transparency, accountability, and will help in demonstrating the proactive will of stopping the abuse of the loopholes of the existing electoral process caps.

Ladies and gentlemen, that in a nutshell is my proposal for the consideration of this honorable community.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Thank you for that presentation. It was well written, and covered a lot of aspects in areas outside APNIC that was very useful.

Could I hope to some questions, please.

One of the things we do very well in APNIC is throw it to the floor for comments, questions, suggestions. Both to the author and general comments.

MIKE JAGER: One of the things I noticed about your presentation, I would like to point out I'm undecided whether I support what you are proposing or not. But one of the things I noticed about the presentation is that it seemed heavily biased towards providing information around the benefits of having one vote per Member and very little information about the advantages of a status quo and the disadvantages of one vote per Member.

I wonder whether there was any research done into the other side of the equation?

PAVAN DUGGAL: I would like to thank you for that wonderfl question, because I did my legal research based on the instruments that were available. I found out that there were no perceived disadvantages to the single vote, single Member entire issue.

In fact, as I was giving the entire example of the Australian elections, themselves, they are based on this.

When the wider world, the entire third process is of one single Member, one vote, clearly, that is the way the majority of the world is going. That is where Internet organizations is going. That is where a lot of organizations which are in the area of Internet are going. That is where the RIRs are going.

My third process was to collate it together. It is not saying that you have been following something for whatever you did. What we are trying to say is that we have now seen that it is locking out, those legitimate aspirants, those nations and those communities who do not find a voice here, primarily because Internet has reached them late, primarily because it was an accident of history that Internet got introduced in the West, and it is coming to these so-called undeveloped and developing countries as a much later state.

When the Internet is a common heritage for the humanity as a whole, whether it is a good idea to lock out people who have come in late, whether it is a good idea not to give representation, voice, participation, and the entire presence to those people who, by accident of history, have only joined the Internet bandwagon a bit late.

The idea is primarily in that regard.

I endorse the third process. I was unable to find any documented perceived disadvantages to this proposal.

SKEEVE STEVENS: I've got three parts but they're very quick. I'd like to point out that voting is not exactly tied to resources, although it is scales and associate Member with no resources has a single vote. That is something that we should clarify on.

And I believe that that needs to be changed if we are going to go to the one-Member system, since that creating an awful lot of associate Members is very cheap and easy to do, and you could skew the entire process very quickly.

And the current voting system, that is very hard to do, but in the one Member, one vote, that is very abusable.

Secondly, I do - I have talked to a few of the other RIRs and I have looked at some of their documents relating to their single-Member, single-vote system, I do appreciate that. I think that APNIC does stand out as an aberrant in the rest of the RIR field and the way they function.

And I will get back to my third point when I remember what it was!

PAVAN DUGGAL: Thank you. I cannot agree more. And thank you once again for giving those comments. I cannot agree more that we are all committed to the further growth of APNIC as an international organization. By continuing to stick to its current guns of a proportionate voting system, it is standing in a very uncomplimentary light. We should all try to do things to put it in the right reputational perspective, as it is currently enjoying.

SKEEVE STEVENS: The third point is that in NIRs - there is no proposal on how they will be represented as they are a single vote. In that case, and whether it is an Indian RIR or JPNIC, different countries, you have hundreds of Members below them that are not APNOC Members and are not represented. That causes a significant problem as well.

PAVAN DUGGAL: Thank you for raising that question, and that raises a very fundamental question. You talked about the Indian NIR. Of course, APNIC has granted the NIR - Indian NIR in principle to India. Of course, you have to understand that when this proposal is going to be implemented, it is actually going to cut the hands of the NIR. Because the NIR is going to get just one vote. But, here, it is a question: Are we giving votes to IP addresses? To community? Or are we giving votes to nations? In case we are giving votes to IP address, sure, 64 is a small number. Then we should have the total number of votes as total number of Internet protocol addresses that are likely to be allocated by APNIC.

The proposition is here. We are talking about representation of people. So when an NIR comes in, there will be hundreds or dozens of organizations. But they will be ultimately represented by one NIR and one vote, so this will end up reducing the number of votes. Going forward, I had made a comparative analysis of the top 7 number of nations in APNIC. I found out that what will be the position in terms of the ranking in case of what the current position is, and in case if the one Member, one vote system is established. To my astonishment, I found that the ranks do not change at all in the first one to seven.

The same nations - China, number 1 - continues to be number 1, even in one Member, one vote system.

Similarly India, similar others.

I come from a country where once the NIR is implemented, there will be one vote, it will be leading to a reduction of votes. It is more something for the community as a whole. I

JAMES SPENCELEY: Keep the comments short.

DAVID WOODGATE: I'd like to make just a couple of brief comments. One is that in some ways in the important business of deciding how the main business of APNIC is conducted in the policies of allocating IP addresses, which is the fundamental purpose of APNIC, at the end of the day, I would argue that there is already beyond one Member, one vote in terms of broad democracy and community consensus, in that it is a very open process and the formal status of any Members is irrelevant to the - that particular process.

I would like to question about your basic premise, the way you have been presenting your arguments. It seems to be based on APNIC essentially as a government or a - almost as a government sort of institution, or, rather, a government in its own right.

I think of - - given that most of the voting that happens, formal voting in APNIC is only applied to the election of EC Members, and the purpose of the EC is essentially, as a board, to guide and run a company, I would have thought that the parallel was more in running a company, which, as to the best of my knowledge, and throughout the world, all companies are based on proportional voting, of course, of their membership.

PAVAN DUGGAL: Thank you for the questions.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Some people have been waiting.

PAVAN DUGGAL: I want to answer that question. Thank you, Sir.

Well, I endorse the third process, that the business of APNIC is in the policy of allocating addresses. Sure, but you somehow find - if I understood you correctly, you said that we found it a presumption that possibly we are equating APNIC as a government organization, whereas it is a company, and companies are run on proportional voting. P

This is not a normal company. APNIC is not a general company incorporated under the general corporate laws of a particular country.

APNIC is representative of Asia Pacific as a community, region and nation. It can be a big boys' club, if you so desire. The question is whether you want that perception to go out into the community. Here is an organization which says that it is at open, transparent, self-regulatory industrial organization. If that has lofty principles, clearly we should be seen to be transparent. It is not only important that you do good things, it is important that you must be seen to be doing good things. You are doing fabulous job. If the perception is that it is a closed-door club, getting inside will be problematic, it is not a normal corporation. I would beg to slightly disagree. It is not a normal corporation. If it was, its business was not normal, only limited to commercially interests of its associates.

JUDITH VAZQUEZ: Mr Duggal, I don't see the IP address as a number but as a customer, so as a service provider, with a /17 block, I see that as equivalent to 129 /24s, which are given out to corporate customers.

So I speak for people, the block is about people using the Internet. That is my only comment.

PAVAN DUGGAL: I completely endorse the third process. We speak for people. We are not speaking for chattel. Or speaking for mere numbers. Once we are speaking of people, we want to give them equal representation. We need to empower the entire community. Let's not lock our doors to people who unfortunately because of history have not been able to get on to the bandwagon as of now now. I endorse the third process, and thank you for bringing that particular issue out.

FARHAD ALSHIRAWI: I'm interested on expanding on the question that Skeeve asked and I ask for clarification. Your proposal for one Member one vote is that - is it to - I mean, I don't see how it would work? Are you looking to abolish NIRs? Because if you are talking about - I mean, you made parallels from other regions. You brought in ARIN system, you brought in the RIPE region, you brought in the AfriNIC region, and NIRs do not exist in those regions.

And NIR has one vote, and NIR used to have three votes, depending on size. And this changed. It did not change because of a common right of humanity, which by the way is a term that the US Government used in the 1970s, when they put the art on the display and they used that to push the oil as a common right of humanity agenda, which later for decades set the status for US foreign policy. It is interesting that you are using it, anyway.

I don't see what you are saying. Are you saying no more NIRs or you want to have NIRs but the NIR, despite representing ten or 100 or 300 or a million members, has the same rights as an NIR representing one Member?

PAVAN DUGGAL: Thank you, Sir. I would like to thank you for that question. Nowhere did I mention the concept of an NIR being abolished.

NARESH AJWANI: That is sufficient.

IZUMI OKUTANI: I'm from an NIR, so obviously I'm interested in the part about the NIRs voting. We have 380 members that is under our management, and I think we would really hope that their voices could be reflected in APNIC's voting system as well. So I'm not saying that, you know, we should stick to the current system of one NIR getting 64 votes, but I think if we revise voting system, please consider this situation.

NARESH AJWANI: Very good submission. We need to move to the next. And I hope this is the last one, please.

DAVID BOND: My question is around the point that you are making.

It is to do with your parallel of APNIC being a non-profit organization. And such organizations must have some sort of revenue stream, even though they are not a profit, and they base those revenue streams quite often on subscriptions of the Members.

So we need some clarification about what constitutes a Member, is it a person like myself standing here, but I represent an organization. It is my organization that pays the membership fee.

So if I'm paying a higher fee than someone else, surely my organization could put forward a proportional number of Members.

So, therefore, my voting rights would be as - - probably better than the current structure.

So I think we need to take that into account.


PAVAN DUGGAL: When I talk of Member, Member talks of a legal entity, which is capable of being a Member of APNIC, whether you are an individual, whether you are a corporate, or whether you are in any category of Members that is already defined in the APNIC memorandum and articles of association and bylaws. I'm referring to that specific definition in that regard.

NARESH AJWANI: Final comment, please.

DESI VALLI: You were saying that the change and bylaws, however, please note that the tier and voting rights document was struck by APNIC in the website is dated 18th June 2009. Where is the bylaws is scripted on June 1998. Henceforth, this proposal doesn't follow the change of bylaws. Hence, I request the chair to conclude on the next step of this proposal.

NARESH AJWANI: Are you suggesting some kind of motion to be passed?

DESI VALLI: I recommend motion to be called for support error than not support rather than waiting for the new Member petition. This is nothing to do with the bylaws. This proposal has to be called for support.

JAMES SPENCELEY: I don't necessarily want to get involved in what a bylaw change is or not. What I would like to do is ask the floor if they think this policy proposal as presented needs to either have more work, have a working group formed, or be presented to the members for a vote. So I think they are probably the three options.


JAMES SPENCELEY: Can I have a show of hands if the policy proposal as presented if the room believes that the policy in the format as presented is ready to put to Members for a vote.

All those in favour of that motion, please raise your hand.

APNIC staff, please get a count of those numbers.


And those that think that the policy needs to either be returned to a working group to formulate or - well, probably the other option, then, to form a working group.

I think there is clear support for this proposal to be formed into a working group.

That is 32 against 17.

The next step is if we create a mailing list for those interested in discussing further.

PAVAN DUGGAL: Thank you, Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen.

JAMES SPENCELEY: So we're going to be running very short of time. We'll just change the stenos. So the next policy proposal now, or proposal is for a Government advisory committee.

SKEEVE STEVENS: Just a second, I believe there should have been three choices in that, whether to proceed, go to a group or not proceed. Because you only kind of gave two choices, proceed or proceed. I'm in support of it proceeding to a working group, but I thought that it should be clear that anyone who didn't want it to proceed at all should have been given the tune. It may have been a larger number or none at all.

JAMES SPENCELEY: So just a quick number of hands who would like it to be dropped.

RAJESH CHHARIA: Thank you to the chair and co-chair. And good evening ladies and gentlemen. Final we've got a chance to propose our proposal on the GAC community. Well, I've submitted the proposal into the APNIC website. But as a co-author, I have mentioned that it is a total community of the ISPs. I take this opportunity to introduce the veterans who are responsible for driving it to the Gold Coast. Mr Satya Gupta, a man of versatile exposure of all aspects of the Internet, as a government regulator and business and consumer. Along with Mr Gupta, Mr B.C. Jain who has been engineered by education and is a gold medallist from the Indian Institute of Technology, associated with the Internet since its inception in India. Currently president with a group which has collaborated with a leading telecom company of the world. In brief, my introduction is that I'm very fortunate to serve the community as the president of the ISPAI.

India has over 300 plus ISPs. I'm also a chair of a very important stakeholder of Internet in emerging economies, Cyber Cafe Association of India. We have about 180,000 cyber cafes and over 72,000 common service centers in India. I will assertain Mr Jain and Mr Gupta for assistance with this presentation. With the permission of the chair.

SATYA GUPTA: Thank you Mr Chairman and Mr Rajesh for giving this opportunity to me for this proposal by all of us, actually. And it is a very simple one. What it actually proposes is to have a Government Advisory Council as part of APNIC. That is in the simple world, that they want a focused wing of APNIC to concentrate on the relationship with the policy makers, regulators, all the sovereign bodies who are actually a most important stakeholder in the Internet community, actually. Though we know that the Internet is best left unregulated and that is the case in most of the economies. But it is easier said than done, especially in our part of the region. Government involvement just cannot be ignored. And the proposal is not for involving the Government in the control of the Internet. It is for engaging with them very actively in a formal manner, in a focused manner, so that we help the Government to help the community in the required decision-making. And their support for facilitating regulation, and in some cases, to lead by example in the e-governance side. Actually, the government bodies can be one of the most important users of the Internet in our part of the world, and they can set an example by leading it. So the Government role is very, very evident. So why this proposal has come out is because at the moment, there is a lack of representation in the APNIC, by the 56 economies and four sub-regions, though they are supposed to be there. But active participation and representation is lacking. And the ecosystem which we are using for actually managing the show, if I can call it, is actually not complete, because as I mentioned, one of the most important stakeholders is not formally a part of the community in that sense. So because of that, there is a sense of constructive and interactive direct dialogue with the government which can actually help the growth of the Internet further, especially in the developing countries where most of our members belong too. And because of this, we are missing on a opportunity to derive the policy support and more than that, the policy facilitation and sometime, even funding actually. The Government has a lot of funding to implement so many, actually, initiatives which are very, very helpful for the development of the community. So that is the situation. Because of that, this proposal is there and as I mentioned, it is just a simple one. An all-inclusive formal advisory body focused on engaging with the policy maker and other sovereign bodies. That is what is required, which should have representation from all of the economies or subregions. Actually every economy should get representation in the body which may be an APEX body, at least once in five years. What it will actually do is it will obtain advice and support and the need from the community based on their own interests and their local requirements. And then provide those inputs and advice to the policy maker and regulator for effective and facilitating policy frameworks, actually.

So it is basically helping the Government in the policy making to get our self-help. So it is not giving away anything. Actually, it is involving them. That is what is the proposal. And the advantage is, of course, by now, would have become very clear. It will avoid any unilateral decision by policy makers and other sovereign bodies as well as the community. As you know, if we are not engaged with the Government in a formal manner, they will be there, because they have the sovereign right. They will come out with the policy anyway. But if you give them the input, the international expertise, the real database knowledge, expertise, it is better. Because it is a well-known decision which will always be useful in interacting with the sovereign bodies for effective and improved communications so that a fine and balanced decision making can happen, matching the community needs with the regional and international perspective, and more than anything else, and that is, of course, the additional advantage as such, it will have enhanced transparency, growth, and development of APNIC as a world class organization, which we are aspiring to be.

So that is what is the proposal and thank you very much.

RAJESH CHHARIA: I think we have completed in the stipulated time.

NARESH AJWANI: If questions are there, we have five minutes.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Can we just clarify if it is a comment or a question to the authors and if they're comments we'll just try to get through as many comments as possible.

TERRY MANDERSON: Speaking strictly for myself. As a comment and an observation, it seems that this is not a membership petition, there is already a structure in the APNIC community of how to produce a special interest group starting from a BoF and then forming a SIG. The NIRs have a SIG, and there is a Policy SIG. There has previously been DNS SIGs and so forth. If there is enough interest from the Government community to involve themselves within the APNIC community, I see no problem with them requesting a BoF and going into a SIG.

SATYA GUPTA: Thank you very much, I think that that is the intention.

PAVAN DUGGAL: A quick comment. My suggestion, it is hard for us to perceive that governments and sovereign nations with sovereign powers are likely to come through the BoF or through the route of a SIG. Here is an opportunity for us as a community to come through as governments. Locking the governments is not a solution, it's not a permanent solution and in the form of GAC and that has already worked with ICANN to show various demonstrated achievements and that is something that is a working principle. ICANN has demonstrated its actual effective working and APNIC should follow suit.

NARESH AJWANI: I believe he was first.

JOHN CURRAN: President and CEO of ARIN. The online proposal for this posted states ARIN doesn't actually have a parallel. That isn't actually acurate. ARIN has a Government Working Group, and I wanted to mention that for the sake of correction. The ARIN government working group might not be a GAC in the eyes of the group proposing here. I will say that it works as a way of educating government about the policy proposals and activities going on before the meeting so that Government can participate on the floor of the meeting just as any other participant can from the community. So as such, it is not an input from government, it is an education to government so that they can participate on the floor just as all other voices. I know it again, the online proposal doesn't reflect the working group, and I don't know whether or not you don't consider that process to be advisory council or whether or not it was an oversight.

I bring it to your attention. Thank you very much.

SATYA GUPTA: Thank you very much. Actually, that is what we want to have in APNIC. Exactly what you have. You can call it by any name, actually. That is a different thing, but the structure that you have actually a similar proposal is here.

NARESH AJWANI: If I understand them correctly, kindly don't mix up the GAC of the ICANN and the GAC of what they're proposing here. Am I right?

SATYA GUPTA: Yes, right. It is a GAC Government Advisory Council that you call it. Basically, it will be a part of the APNIC. It will be a specialized arm of the APNIC. That's all.

NIGEL TITLEY:I was going to make a similar comment to John. We have a similar collaborative working group set up to communicate with governments. It has government members on it and it was formed with the cooperation of governments. One of the chairs is employed by a government and I think it is exactly a similar body. And it was formed through the normal processes of creating working groups, and could I suggest that that is the mechanism to be used here.


SURI CVS: I think that both the speakers that have come forward and spoken, they have tried to bridge a gap in the understanding of the speakers on the podium, so what we have said is that yes, there are certain bodies which already exist similar to what you are saying. I just wanted to add one point to that and that is that whether you take the US or Australia, over the next five years, both these governments in these countries are intending to spend billions of dollars on expanding the broadband networks in their respective countries. Similarly, in the developing economies, a significant amount of money is being budgeted to be spent again in the next five years to get the Internet to reach out to the vast spaces of each of these countries, so I think that it is particularly important for us to be able to engage the governments into the activities that we have, so that we get the necessary years of these governments for us to be able to influence them and our own objectives.

Thank you.

YI CHU: Yi Chu, Sprint. I represent a multinational company based in the US, but we do have interest in Asia-Pacific region which is why we're represented here as a Member. So my point actually is that when you're considering Government relations, please do not just restrict it to the Asia Pacific in this sense. Because my company is based in the region outside of Asia Pacific.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Thank you and final two comments here.

NARESH AJWANI: However, I think that we need to clarify to him that there is a specific membership in APNIC which is of economies in Asia Pacific. So they need to be represented however, they can have additional Members also, if that is the proposal there.

HASANUL HAQ: I'm from Bangladesh. I'm the chair of the post telecommunications. I support the proposal because I'm representing the government and the private sector and for the last 18 months, I'm observing if the Government take up the idea of applying ICT, and then it's a long way for the internal group to catch up with the international community, and so I think that APNIC is a very good thing. And after following the APNIC activities, this knowledge it stands for is not proper to the developing economies, because the Government is not there content with the whole thing, so I think that if the Government representative is in the body, and works with the APNIC, then the knowledge transfer will be very good and it will be very quick to catch up with the international community. Thank you very much.

DESI VALLI: India. I want to give you an update of a recent development in India. With the interaction and possible lobbying and what the ISPs have done along with the Government bodies, there is a mandate which has been released upon the Government of India to all service providers within the region of India to comply IPv6 before December 31, 2011. Such mandates may not be possible without the involvement of the Government. I think that such interactions with the Government will help us to even implement IPv6 faster than what it is happening right now. Thank you very much.

SATYA GUPTA: Thank you.

BRAJESH CHANDRA: All the activities, including Russia, USA, and others, on the security issues, and let us all to help to educate back to the sovereign bodies how it is best that security is implemented without compromsing the easy access of everybody there.

PAVAN DUGGAL: Can I just say...

NARESH AJWANI: Sorry, we don't have time.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Well, I think that the proposal as it stands is for it to be formally incorporated into APNIC, but it sounds like there's comparable working groups in other organizations. Are the authors happy to present the option of forming a working group and would the long-term goal of forming a special interest group, rather than being formerly instructed into the APNIC organization?

SATYA GUPTA: Our proposal is to have a specialized body. You may call it a SIG. Whatever you call it within the frame work. Basically, it should be a separate body within the framework of APNIC, focused on the relations with the sovereign bodies in further interaction.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Thank you for that clarification. So on that basis, I would ask for a show of hands from the people here at the BoF if they would like to...

KUO-WEI WU: I would like to know, is that is this a BoF or a policy decision? If it is a BoF, we basically do a survey, I done think that we should vote. It is kind of strange.

JAMES SPENCELEY: No, this is to form a working group to see if there is the interest in forming a special interest group. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the standard process. Can I get a show of hands for people interested in forming a working group or a mailing list to form a special interest group to involve governments in this way? So those people for it?

The options are for, against...

What are the other motions?

Sorry, I'm going asked three different questions here. The first is, who would like to progress this to a working group and then possibly to form it into a special interest group. The second is, who would like to see this proposal dropped? And I think that they're the only two options going forward.

PAVAN DUGGAL: Can I just...


PAVAN DUGGAL: One quick question. Based on what has been agreed on two other RIRs. This as a motion, could this itself be recommended as forming a SIG.

NARESH AJWANI: That's OK but we should really follow some decorum. Once we decide that the questions are over, it really should be. I'm sorry about it.

JAMES SPENCELEY: So if those are the two options, with forming a working group and a special interest group, or dropping this proposal for a special interest group. Could we have a show of hands of who would like to progress this to a working group and then to a special interest group?

And who would like to see this proposal dropped?

OK, we will move it to a working group towards creating a special interest group.


OK, I think we can go a little bit over time here, but not much. So we'll deal with the last policy proposal which is limiting the maximum term of two EC members. So I'll obviously step down as an EC member here.

NARESH AJWANI: Thank you very much. I was very specific because I didn't want to go through last time's embarrassment of a conflict of interest. I mentioned to James as he was appointing me as a co-chair as to whether we had checked up everything in terms of a conflict of interest. We confirmed to me that yes, he has done the check and the EC feel that me taking over as chair is no conflict of interest. Thank you for this opportunity. I would request the proposal, to make it as fast as possible. Because there is a paucity of time.

SHASHI PARKASH JERATH: If you accept this proposal, I will just stop it!


Good evening ladies and gentlemen and honorable chair. First of all, my apologies to . I think I never wanted to displace him from this particular special board. I take this opportunity to present this proposal and as I've been requested, that I've been very, very short. Let me tell you that I have a multiple facet experience of telecom, IT, media, entertainment. And recently I'm on the board of Tulip Telecom which is a very big ISP. And I have been following for the last two or three years, specifically, ICANN and APNIC. And based on my experience and my diversified data of expertise, I applied to form this particular proposal. The proposal topic is simple. A proposal for fixing a maximum period of two terms for an EC. This is what my subject is. Now, this proposal covers five specific sub-subjects. One is regarding the subject matters. The second is about the current problem. The third is about the subject proposal. What are the details of that proposal. The advantages and disadvantages and the effect of NIR and APNIC Members.

Let's first look into this particular thing, what is the current situation and the current problem. Currently, there is no limit on the period of EC member leading to a lack of representation of the majority of the economies. As you know, we have got 56 economies and how many are represented currently in the EC? I think all of you are aware of that. Democratic institutions are best served with a mix of experience and fresh ideas and thoughts brought in by new members. This is what is the requirement of the general lead. As you know, the technologies and therefore the Internet is evolving and growing very fast, and therefore needs changes at every particular place in a continuous manner.

The subject matter is policy seeks to limit the term of the EC member. Maximum of two terms - four years. This is what I have proposed. For all EC members who have completed four years continuous or with a gap in between two terms, not to be eligible for contest. Because what I feel is that young, new blood, experienced people, more and more involvement of the people from different communities are required to be involved into this.

Salient details of the proposal. See, APNIC is meant for the growth of the Internet. And it is for all. It is connecting all the world. So from that particular angle, I have just given a very wider respect, though my particular strong detailed report which is already listed on to the APNIC website is available, but I'll just try to cover the salient aspects. Involving Internet dynamic thoughts, public policies mandatory for growth, I think that's important for today, and we can not skip this particular point. Economies to be encouraged for their participation through the leadership. That is where everything is happening. That expertise and more and more dedicated approaches to each particular problem and each particular area is getting evolved. A fine balancing act required for all inclusive growth of the Internet, globally.

This is the global phenomena, and we cannot, you know, restrict this to APNIC or Asia.

The proposal would ensure greater broad-based representation in the EC. That's what I tried to put in this particular thing, because if there is a limitation, presently that out of the 56 economies, very few economies are being represented. This can be many, but still, there are very few representations made. Therefore, it has to be broad-based and broad-based will bring many, many new additional factors. Therefore, the present proposal is for fixing the maximum period or the term for which someone can serve as an EC member. Fixing terms for directors is extremely invaluable for the for the further robust growth of any organization. This is the basic requirement of future growth. This is the basic requirement of any organization, any association or any bodies.

The inclusion of new blood is absolutely essential for any organization to grow in the next double. This is the need of the hour, this is the need of the day, this is the need of the month.

As you've asked me to be very, very short and precise, I want to go straight away to the advantages and disadvantages. That they do not become incumbents. Representations of most stakeholders in APNIC increases. Fresh thoughts would evolve in the organization. There would not be any kind of misuse in the company's asset. It's always true, I think, if a person is perpetually working in an organization for a long period or for an indefinite period, he becomes like a person who says that OK, things are taken for granted and I will do the things according to the way it is required. Now, in the changing scenarios, in the changing economies, in the changing growth pattern of the world, I think that this is required to be re-looked into. Considering the perceived disadvantages, I hardly see any. There are no major perceived disadvantages of having a fixed tenure of directors in APNIC.

The effects on the NIRs and APNIC. Members if you see, directly or indirectly.

NARESH AJWANI: OK, can you go to the last, please?



FARHAD: I look add the RIPE NCC board and I make a parallel and three of the board members are serving their first term and two of the board members are incumbent board members. I personally would not like to lose the incumbent board members because of the invaluable knowledge that they bring to the table. I do not agree with you when you say - I mean, fresh blood is interesting and nice. It's nice to have that mix. But what does a fixed term have to do with it? If the membership feels that the current EC is too set in its ways and not doing its job, then they should vote them out. And on another note, I would like to ask, what is your current job, sir?

NARESH AJWANI: Let's not get personal about this?

AKINORI MAEMURA: I'm an EC member right now and I have been working as an Executive Council member for ten years, and could I... go back to the slide of the advantage and disadvantages? Then, the advantages perceived - the disadvantages, no major perceived disadvantages. If you didn't perceive the disadvantage, that would be true. But mentioned in the very early period of the discussion on the APNIC talk, I have, through a message, the longer experienced EC member has the benefit to have the better knowledge and some capability throughout the experience of the EC. Then I'm really... what do I say? Really sad to see this because I think you, of course, keep track of the APNIC Talk mailing list.

NARESH AJWANI: I appreciate and agree with you. Let the next one speak, please.

JONNY MARTIN: From the same slide here. You're saying an advantage of the proposal is that there would not be any misuse in the company's asset. That seems a little rude in that it is suggesting that there is misuse at the moment. And that it would disappear if you had new people coming in all the time. I contend that you're more likely to see misuse of the company's assets, whether that means if you have new blood coming in all the time.

NARESH AJWANI: We should avoid implying things. I don't think that is what was said here.

SURI CVS: Thank you, my name is Suri and I'm with a company called [] Technologies Limited. This is more a comment and clarification. I think that the essential point that is being made is about finding a voice and providing an opportunity for people to voice their requirements and their needs. A small statistic. The Asia Pacific region has a population of four billion. The current ECs, six of them, represent roughly about 1.8 billion out of that. What it leaves us is the 2.2 billion population that is unrepresented and does not have a voice at the EC level. I'm completely aware that in this organization, we say that the EC is not representing a nation or a region and it is for the entire Asia-Pacific economy. It was valid, when you have the opportunity for the ECs to practically engage with the economies and have an understanding of these economies.

NARESH AJWANI: Sorry, point taken. Nobody objects them for anybody to come and contest the election. We record the point. If the next person can speak.

SURI CVS: Could I take just 15 seconds please.


SURI CVS: So my point here is that it is extremely critical for people at the EC level to have an understanding of the economies, to understand that particular voice. Thank you.


JAMES SPENCELEY: It was just an observation. Currently we have three EC members in their first term. Two EC members who have been longer than two terms and a vacant slot. So my feeling is that we do actually have new blood coming into the APNIC EC. I would be, as a new EC member, I would be very upset if you removed that.

NARESH AJWANI: We acknowledge that.

KENNY HUANG: EC council member and also from TWNIC. I have no comment regarding the proposal but a question regarding to the procedure, because initially it was a BoF. So to try to elaborate on the discussion, but somehow it became a process making procedure. If you seriously consider the proposal based on the existing APNIC bylaws, you need to change the by laws. You need two thirds of the entire membership to get a vote in.

NARESH AJWANI: This has been decided in the very first phase and the two proposals are not at all relate today any kind of a bylaws and in this case, I need to check up and get back to you whether there are by laws or not. We will check up on this and get back to you.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Naresh, I don't believe we decided if these proposals were related to the bylaws, I think that was just a comment on the floor.

NARESH AJWANI: OK, so the comment has actually come from the floor. I clarify this too.

PAVAN DUGGAL: I would like to point to the attention of community to the existing position of ICANN. If ICANN can show and limit the members of its board. And this particular principle is all across the world. I think that there is no logical or legal opposition to the principle. Well, we have seen organizations when we provide for a fixed term and provide for a break and then allow people to come back again after a break. So there is no impediment or restriction of any kind whatsoever.

NARESH AJWANI: Pavan this is the correction. Because that's not what the proposal is. The proposal says that if somebody has completed two terms, not allowed to come back. So this is a correction that you are proposing?

PAVAN DUGGAL: No, I'm saying that we need to be aware of what the international practices are in this regard, which is that this limit has been approved by a number of international organizations.

NARESH AJWANI: OK, we will take this as a correction, please.

TERRY MANDERSON: Speaking again for myself. For the proposal as written, I don't agree with it. I don't believe that it will provide any of the advantages you've put up there. Generally, limiting the tenure of a director is primarily there for succession planning and that's not been identified.

NARESH AJWANI: Thank you. OK, please. value

DESI VALLI: Just there.

NARESH AJWANI: We are running short of time. This is the last one.

DESI VALLI: There is a need for correction in bylaws hence forth, what needs to be followed for the process changing.

NARESH AJWANI: OK, we have to check up on all three issues whether they're related to bylaws and that is related to time.

BRAJESH CHANDRA: When you said the last one, you did not look to the left, you only looked to the right. I think that hearing these things, I think that it is perceived as maybe two terms or three terms probably could be also to consider so that the benefit of experience in the community is available there.

NARESH AJWANI: Thank you, I do not think that we can continue with this. Here, we would like to make some motion? Or shall we automatically, because it has not been discussed completely, take it to the next discussion time. See, the discussion has not been completed at all. So can this move to the next session? Where we can take it up in a BoF next time? Is that all right?

JAMES SPENCELEY: Do up want to ask the floor?

NARESH AJWANI: Do you want to discuss this in the next BOF because we have not been given the tune for him to respond?

DAVID WOODGATE: When you say next one - do you mean next meeting in Hong Kong?

NARESH AJWANI: Or on the mail or subsequently over the next meeting in Hong Kong, that's right. That's right. You are right.

GAURAB RAJ UPADHAYAl: To form a working group for the first, I think that the working group could be something like a bylaws working group that can cover both.

NARESH AJWANI: Good idea. So please, how many people support what Gaurab is saying for having a working group in this. Please raise your hands? The working group for this piece also. For the third proposal also if it is related to by laws. It has been confirmed by the house also that it is related to the APNIC by laws.

GAURAB RAJ UPADHAYAl: We agreed on the first point that we'll form a working group to discuss the issue of one Member, and one vote. That is a change in the by law. This is also a change of the by law.

NARESH AJWANI: I done think that the first one has been concluded that it is a bylaws. This is confirmed because the information has come from the House also that it is bylaws.

GAURAB RAJ UPADHAYAl: So I think that the issue of having multiple working groups and multiple BoFs, if it can be summarized into one working group to take a holistic view of things. It would probably simplify things for Members.

NARESH AJWANI: So you're saying proposal number one and proposal number three can come in the same working group or BoF?


NARESH AJWANI: Pavan we really don't have time.

PAVAN DUGGAL: May I just take 10 seconds?

NARESH AJWANI: 10 seconds!

PAVAN DUGGAL: I think we've already gone through proposal one and two. Confirming one and three is now relating history. What has already been recorded in terms of motions past should not be revisited. At this juncture

NARESH AJWANI: I agree. So third, a new group, because that is what it is proposed so why don't we take a call to discuss it in the next APNIC. Or we form a working group separately for this proposal?

NEW SPEAKER: Or we drop it.

NARESH AJWANI: OK, so three things. So we have a working group for the proposal. Please raise your hands?

We take it to the next APNIC for a discussion because all of the points have not come forward and we need to discuss it more?

All right, the last one is, should we drop it without discussion and listening To the proposal? I repeat my motion here. Should we drop it without giving an opportunity to somebody to present it?

OK, 23 people want this to be dropped. Am I right in my understanding. Versus 10 people saying the working group and nine people saying...

10 people saying working group. Seven people are saying that it should be discussed in the next session and 23 people want to drop it. So, I think that there is definitely a favorable situation for dropping it. But simultaneously, 17 is... if you put it together as a consideration of a discussion.


All right, so fair enough. We will drop this. Thank you.

SHASHI PARKASH JERATH: Thank you, you have not given me time to explain. But that's OK.

JAMES SPENCELEY: Thank you, we can now all go to dinner. Thank you everyone for the input and to the presenters. Thank you.

^ Top    < Home