[sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Dear SIG members A proposal to modify the APNIC SIG Guidelines relating to the election of SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs has been submitted for consideration at APNIC 42 im Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt If agreed. these changes will affect all

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

[ this is address policy? ] > Secondary, it can be used by fraud, like hijacking the position of > Chair agaist the Community by inviting many persons who never attend > the community discussion. > ... > I would like to propose limiting eligible voters of SIG Chair election > to registered partici

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

I think this does need fixing, but I am not happy with this proposal as do not think it goes far enough. Specifically - who is entitled to register for Confer? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 23

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi All, As you know, it is our current practice that Chair/Co-Chair doesn't propose a policy by himself/herself in recent APNIC Policy SIG. However, while it seems that many community members basically agreed with these problem when I presented them at Singapore < https://conference.apnic.net/__d

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy On 5/09/2016, 20:52, "Randy Bush" wrote: >> [ this is address policy? ] No this is not address policy. The SIG Guidelines are the rules of procedure for all SIGs. The proposal was also sent to the other SIG mailing lists, but will be discussed in the Policy SIG as there is

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

This is worrying re Confer as I am quite sure I could register 100,000 people with unique addresses. We've entered a new era of bots - this would not be hard. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

hi: this kludge is not very well thought out. not that i am advocating, but an ietfish approach would be a requirement to have attended n previous meetings. makes more sense to me than this proposal. but ... personally, i am not sure there is a real problem. so what if the old guard gets thro

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Skeeve I’m sure you wouldn’t do that, though. The Secretariat could add more stringent registration requirements into Confer, or use an off-the-shelf or online election platform. The question would always be convenience versus validity. I internally raised the potential for somebody to game

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

I wouldn't, but many others would. Don't wait until it's been abused before you have to clean it up. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - Senior IP Broker* *v4Now - *an eintellego Networks service ske...@v4now.com ; www.v4now.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.c

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy Just a couple of references - inline On 6/09/2016, 10:35, "Randy Bush" wrote: hi: this kludge is not very well thought out. not that i am advocating, but an ietfish approach would be a requirement to have attended n previous meetings. makes more sense to

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> > The NRO NC election process a similar requirement. > Individuals who are on site and are registered for either the > current APNIC Conference they are attending, or have been registered for at > least one previous APNIC Conference since APNIC 10, are entitled to one > vote. > > https://www.apni

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy, >personally, i am not sure there is a real problem. so what if the old >guard gets thrown out and some new unknown folk get elected. it might >be a breath of fresh air. what actual damage could some fresh blood do? >some radical change in apnic across the board just might benefit the >in

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy and Adam, >>is there an unstated assumption that many persons could attend the >>meeting who are not registered locally or remotely? does that >>assumption hold? >The Secretariat doesn’t physically check registrations at the door to the Policy SIG sessions, I guess a bunch of e

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Skeeve, Firstly, I don't think currend proposed solution is perfect, so I'm very welcome to hear your suggestions how to fix these problems. Certainly, just e-mail address is NOT enough for Confer registration, but how can we set a rule in SIG guideline? Require to identify himself/herself whe

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Randy, >> I would like to propose aligning Chair' term with Co-Chair's term, >> which means that Chair and all Co-Chair will serve for same two years. >could make for a tough transition if both are replaced at the same time. I know that original intension of staggered term is mitigating such tra

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> However, the problem I'm trying to fix is someone can manipulate the > community's view i know. apnic has been doing it for years. time to let others do it too. randy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * __

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hello, For the AFRINIC region, selection(election) is not just based on those present (as one could consider remote participants to be present). Its however based on those "physically present" in the room who meet the voter eligibility criteria[1] at the time of conducting the election. So if some

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

>> could make for a tough transition if both are replaced at the same time. > > I know that original intension of staggered term is mitigating such > transition difficulties, but now we have another practice in SIG > guideline as follows. and this mistake should make me feel good about adding mor

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Adam and all , I think some rules should be added for voting eligibility to avoid fraud (like NRO voting eligibility). Can you please clear up the question how to identify the individuals entitlement who are previously registered APNIC conference and eligible on site voting like APNIC 43 meeti

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

of the stable/continuous forum management, I think that there is no need to revise the part of this guideline. Regards, Hiroki Subject: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines From: Adam Gosling Date: Mon Sep 05 2016 19:08:46 GMT+0900 Dear SIG members A proposal to modify the APNIC S

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

nt Chair/Co-Chair resigne or are removed at the same time > and the another successor who don't know or share the background and > situations of this forum become New Chair/Co-Chair, who do care for them? > > At the point of the stable/continuous forum management, > I think that ther

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Yamanishi-san, Thanks for your comment and revise proposal. Yes, I can support. Regards, Hiroki Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines From: Masato Yamanishi Date: Fri Sep 30 2016 04:24:17 GMT+0900 Kawabata-san (and maybe Randy), So, can you support it if I will

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Dear Jahangir, Sorry, I just aware nobody has not yet answer for your question. >Can you please clear up the question how to identify the individuals entitlement who are previously registered APNIC conference and eligible on site voting like APNIC 43 meeting ? In on-site case, if the secretariat

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Masato , Thanks for your answer and clear from my side . ​ Thank you | Jahangir On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Masato Yamanishi wrote: > Dear Jahangir, > > Sorry, I just aware nobody has not yet answer for your question. > > >Can you please clear up the question how to identify the indiv

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

yamanishi san > So, can you support it if I will revise it as follows? > > 2. SIG Chair's term of service > I would like to propose revising SIG Chair's term of service as follows. > - Elections occur yearly. Chair elections and Co-Chair elections occur in >alternate years (same as current

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy, > this makes sense for the terms of service part. Thank you for your understanding. > but what about the voter suppression issues? I'm doubt current my proposal solves all possible issues, but I have not yet find better solution. So, it is appreciated if you could more inputs as I can

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

>> but what about the voter suppression issues? > I'm doubt current my proposal solves all possible issues are there actually any real issues? have we had any actual problem with who votes for wg [co-]chairs? note my use of "voter suppression." i am from a country where fear of voter fraud (whe

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy, I know two real frauds in past 5 years, and one of community members told me there were more in past. So, it is real issue. Regards, Matt 2016-10-04 19:01 GMT+09:00 Randy Bush : > >> but what about the voter suppression issues? > > I'm doubt current my proposal solves all possible is

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> I know two real frauds in past 5 years, and one of community members > told me there were more in past. > So, it is real issue. im my culture, those are unsubstantiated accusations. please be explicit. i do not care if one confused person voted. in what sig elections was there a real effort t

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

let me put it another way. we say very broadly, to the entire world, that the policy sig is open, open, open. so on what basis should we restrict who can vote? randy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ si

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

People not concerned (non members of APNIC) should not be allowed to vote. --- Cordialement, Bertrand CHERRIER b.cherr...@micrologic.nc MICRO LOGIC SYSTEMS https://www.mls.nc Vente & maintenance réseaux Informatique Fournisseur de Sensations Internet Service clientèle au 36.67.76 (58Frs/mn) L

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

> People not concerned (non members of APNIC) should not be allowed to > vote. then apnic should drop the hypocrisy of saying policy is open randy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * ___ sig-policy mailing lis

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy, Yes, I prefer this way to discuss and improve it :-) Certainly, the openness is very important, and that is the reason why I didn't add more conditions as other regions are doing. <> I just added voters should be registere

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Great Randy for sharing the image :) ​Thank you | Jahangir On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > In addition, we need to consider a balance between openness and equality. > > > > or my version > > > > randy > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy

Re: [sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG guidelines

Hi Randy, Yes, there are so many ways, but we should choose one of them which can be reached consensus by the community. Since several people are now complaining about current election process, I beleive we cannot say we have a consensus for that any more. Thus this problem exist. Regards, Matt

[sig-policy] Proposal to revise SIG Guidelines returned to author

Dear SIG members A proposal to modify the APNIC SIG Guidelines relating to the election of SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs was discussed at a joint sitting of all SIGs during APNIC 42 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. https://www.apnic.net/sig-chair-elections/proposed-revision.txt The proposal did not reach c