> On Aug 21, 2023, at 12:24, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Ole:
>
> See my reply in-line:
>
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 at 21:06 Ole Jacobsen <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Inline, starts with ***OLE
>>
>>> On Aug 21, 2023, at 09:14, Lu Heng <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[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.
Here’s the problem with the anti-litigation clause…
Any enterprising EC who wants to prevent a candidate from running can simply
create a cause of action between
APNIC and said candidate to make them ineligible to run.
It’s not so much about enabling an individual suing APNIC to run as it is the
concern over the ability of the current
APNIC management/EC to prevent a candidate from running merely by the simple
act of initiating litigation.
In this day and age when virtually anyone can sue virtually anyone else for
virtually anything and keep even
the dumbest of cases alive for months (likely years with half-way decent
lawyers), it’s not hard to imagine
a relatively efficient ability to narrow the slate of candidates to ones
hand-picked by the current management.
Doing that, frankly, was one of the behaviors that led to the current situation
in AFRINIC, so Mr. Lu’s
apprehension over this provision is rather understandable.
I’m not saying I want to see Lu on the APNIC EC (I actually don’t think he is
particularly well suited to the job),
but there is a structural problem with this provision in the bylaws in that it
creates an opportunity for the APNIC
management and EC to engage in a denial of service attack against potential EC
candidates.
That should be addressed through amendment of the proposal, IMHO.
Full disclosure: Yes, I do some contract work for Larus. I do not speak for or
on behalf of Larus and the opinions
here are my own and not those of Larus or Lu Heng. In fact, he probably won’t
like some of what I said here.
We disagree at least as often as we agree.
>>> 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.
There are plenty of public non-profit companies that do not work for the
“collective good of humans”. To name just a few:
The American Nazi Party (now National Socialist White People’s Party
aka New Order)
The National Rifle Association
The Number Resource Society
Virtually All SuperPACs (Political Action Committees)
Many non-profit companies are organized around a particular agenda to benefit
their particular members rather than
society at large.
Also, given the extent to which you, Mr. Lu and I frequently disagree and the
extent to which I have publicly
opposed some of your stated interests, I think that I am living proof that
there can be value in hiring someone
who is not 100% in line agreement with the company’s current goals and
objectives.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
While it is rare for me to disagree with Ole, as I have come to know him as a
wise and experienced gentleman of vast
knowledge, in this case, regrettably, I do.
Engaged in active litigation is a two-edged sword. While I can see that there
is a potential issue with someone who is
a plaintiff against the organization being a simultaneous candidate for the
board (EC), I also see the risk that the
initiation of litigation could be used by the board (EC) and/or management to
eliminate candidates they don’t like
simply by initiating litigation against that candidate or a business in which
that candidate has a significant interest.
Yes it would create a conflict of interest and said person should be recused
from any matters related to the litigation
or legal strategy until the litigation is resolved, but the board (EC) and
management should not have the power to
eliminate candidates from the ballot so easily, IMHO.
>> ***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!
Here, Ole, you are making the mistake of assuming that the upstanding EC of
prior experience is a permanent state.
We’ve seen with AFRINIC how a board can all too easily fall to corruption and
begin abusing its power in very similar
ways.
Courts also don’t act quickly, so imagine this scenario:
3 months before election, EC/Management initiate APNIC vs. <candidate_A>
Candidate_A is no longer eligible and is removed from the ballot.
A few weeks after the election, prior to the first hearing of the case,
EC/Management withdraw the suit.
No issue with the court, no harm, no foul, except to Candidate_A who was not
allowed to stand for election.
I’m not saying that the current or any former EC would resort to such an
action, but the point of bylaws is to define
the boundaries within which such bodies can act and to create a set of checks
and balances which prevent these
forms of abusive behavior even in light of a potentially less than pure board.
Owen
_______________________________________________
APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
