Hi Ole: See my reply in-line:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 21:06 Ole Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Inline, starts with ***OLE > > On Aug 21, 2023, at 09:14, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ole: > > I know the history well enough, while it all start with good intention, it > just need to evolve when the market formed, resource become scarce, humans > can not resist temptation of corruption. > > Your question just makes no sense. > > > ***OLE: You have repeatedly challenged the proposed by-law change > regarding individuals engaged in litigation > with APNIC. In your view (if I understand it correctly) ANYONE should be > able to run for the EC regardless of > whether or not they are engaged legal activities against APNIC. This, in > your view, is just "democratic" or > a "human right" (to sue). > Yes, RIR is owned by its members, and it’s member have rights to challenge the RIR, including their legal rights. That does not preclude their ability participate in the governance matters, including running for the election. > > > My company are my own company, I own it. Of course anyone against me or > the company we will not hire. > > > ***OLE: So quite obviously I wasn't talking about YOUR company, I was > talking about ANY company seeking to > hire someone as an employee or (electing) as a member of its board. > Private company are quite different from public none profit. Private company works for the benefits of their shareholder, in which any one against interest of the shares holder will not be hired is normal practice. Public none profit company works for the collective good of humans, of course it’s leadership are held at much higher standard of accountability towards society, especially it’s members. > > > So are you suggesting RIR is also owned by someone is also a > dictatorship?(at least one RIR seems to be, at least suggested by public > record on owning the only share of the RIR, hey, he owned more of the RIR > than I own LARUS(I don’t own 100%), so you do have a point here:) > > In all seriousness, If you exclude any one in dispute with a public > institution from serving that very institution, you simply incentivize > anyone in power command the institution finding dispute with the > opposition, in order to disqualify them. > > > ***OLE: "owned by" isn't of any relevance here. Whether you like it or > not, APNIC exists as an organization with its > associated board (EC) and staff. Anyone engaged in active litigation with > APNIC should not be eligible to run for its > board, that's just common sense as other people have repeatedly stated. > Other people have repeated stated otherwise, and it is certainly not the common sense and I know you don’t like it, *you* does not represents people. APNIC have been a one man company for 25 years, it’s a public fact, and it never register as NGO with Australian goverment. > > You will have long ruling dictators from that point on. > > All you need is 7 individuals who see eye to eye in the EC, command APNIC > to sue anyone who have potential to challenge their seat, they will be > there forever. > > > ***OLE: Now you are talking about the EC suing individuals running for the > EC, in other words, APNIC suing candidates. > EC members are elected to serve in the best interest of APNIC members and > a candidate would have to have behaved pretty > badly for such litigation to be initiated. Courts don't look kindly on > frivolous lawsuits even if you've managed to > push some through :-) Please get real! > if EC have best interest or not is not in anyway relevant to the loophole I have pointed out. Leaders can be elected with horrible intent, hitler was a elected leader. Court have declared all my lawsuits are justified, it is afrinic not afforded due process to me, unless you can sustain your claim I have made frivolous lawsuits, you have to bare the consequences of deformation. That being said, it does not mean elected EC will not use APNIC as device to silence the opposition, history told us every elected dictatorship including hitler did that. > > A loophole will destroy the internet. > > > ***OLE: The loophole by which you obtained IP blocks intended for use in > Africa could certainly be a start, which > is another good reason we need by-law changes and clearer policies. Most > of the people commenting on this list seem > to understand that. > Who said those IP intent to use anywhere? Can you sustain your claim with actual document? RIR are local internet facilitator, not territorial exclusive governing body. Most people understand by-law change required to give true power back to the members. Again, *you* are not most people in the list. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 20:33 Ole Jacobsen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Lu, >> >> Rather than your endless repetition of your world view and how broken >> ours is, >> perhaps YOU should familiarize yourself with the history of IANA. >> >> https://www.internetsociety.org/ianatimeline/ >> >> And while you are at it, perhaps you could answer my previous question >> which >> was "would you hire an employee who is in active litigation against your >> company? >> and if not, what makes "hiring" a director/board member any different?" >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ole >> >> Ole J. Jacobsen >> Editor and Publisher >> The Internet Protocol Journal >> Office: +1 415-550-9433 >> Cell: +1 415-370-4628 >> Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 >> Web: protocoljournal.org >> E-mail: [email protected] >> E-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor and Publisher > The Internet Protocol Journal > Office: +1 415-550-9433 > Cell: +1 415-370-4628 > Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 > Web: protocoljournal.org > E-mail: [email protected] > E-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
