Hello,

My point of view – the idea behind Sergey’s suggestion is clear – give more power to the active part of the membership. I support this idea, because it solves two important things:

1. The “additional” topics for the GM agenda are not decided by some private conversations to the EB, even if there is a way to get in touch with Nigel or someone else from the EB. Why should there be difference in the procedure of adding a topic in case of “one person ask EB to add this” or “you should have to have 180 people writing the petition to the EB to be able to add the topic directly”? The transparency of the whole procedure will increase when we lower the 2% threshold. As an example of this I can say about RPKI voting on the last GM – “someone” decided – every members have to abide. There was no 2% discussions, nor transparency about who and with what authority added this topic to the agenda.

2. There is no way to influence the agenda after it is published – just no time for this, according to the AoA. This is what happened on the last GM, where most of the members presented were asking for some changes/additions and it was impossible to do that, so the GM was like a farce, where everybody plays their roles knowing the absurd situation.

Relating proxy voting and hostage of the agenda – there are topics which are in the agenda by AoA, nobody ask a person to stay the whole GM and vote for every resolution (instead of have some beer)! And is “many voices – more power” not the sign of democracy we all are talking about in all case of vote procedures?

I’m against also about the representation of EB for members will. The voting for EB membership is seldom and not flex enough to live with so huge customer base.

Regards,

Vladislav Potapov

Ru.iiat