Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] Results of APNIC fee structure vote (fwd)

[Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>]

Dear Akinori,

MAEMURA Akinori said the following on 21/9/07 12:50:
> 
> I don't think the Secretariat and/or the EC can disclose the 
> vote count breakdown by membership category in any case, 
> especially whether the distribution has a specific pattern 
> or not.

If there is nothing to hide, there would be no problem. ;-)

Anyway, this is all distracting from the real issue, and I would like to
see some leadership from the EC in getting the Secretariat funding back
on track.

philip
--

> 
> I hope you understand in this way.
> 
> Regards,
> Akinori
> 
> 
> 
> In message <46F13C46.2050705@cisco.com>
>    "Re: [Wg-apnic-fees] Results of APNIC fee structure vote (fwd)"
>    "Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>" wrote:
> 
> | Hi Paul,
> | 
> | Paul Wilson said the following on 19/9/07 14:41:
> | >
> | > I have consulted with the APNIC EC on this question.
> | > 
> | > The detailed breakdown of votes by member category could help to reveal
> | > the specific votes of individual members.  APNIC votes are cast by
> | > secret ballot in order to protect the identity of voters, therefore it
> | > is not considered appropriate to reveal the detailed breakdown.
> | >
> | > I hope this reasoning is clear.
> | 
> | Absolutely! I thought I'd ask anyway, given we saw the breakdown between
> | on-site and on-line voting.
> | 
> | But the refusal by the EC to sanction publication of the per-category
> | split (implying that it is known) actually reveals something else. ;-)
> | 
> | If each membership category voted roughly 30:70, then it would be hard
> | to tell which member voted which way unless there was a certain category
> | with limited membership numbers that voted solidly in one direction.
> | 
> | I find this fascinating...!
> | 
> | philip
> | --
> | _______________________________________________
> | Wg-apnic-fees mailing list
> | Wg-apnic-fees@apnic.net
> | http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/wg-apnic-fees
> | 
>