[Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Alan Barrett]

> On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision.
>> 
>> When there’s an election, it’s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion.  Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits?
>> 
>> When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there?  I don’t see a need to legislate this.
> 
> If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures and/or open questions such as this when triggered.
> 
> As such, I’d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted than a “we’ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary” approach.

I will propose text to deal with this.

>>> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of “endorsement” is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld.
>> 
>> The vagueness was already present.
> 
> This isn’t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove that vagueness is worth consideration at least.
> 
>> I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent.  Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members?
> 
> So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen to be in the room would uphold the board’s decision. Absent that, it would then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board’s decision. To me, this presents multiple possible outcomes:
> 
> 	1.	Community endorses — Everything is fine, board decision stands.
> 	2.	Community rejects, membership does not reject — Unclear what happens, I presume board decision stands?
> 	3.	Community rejects, membership rejects — Board decision is? { Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective action by the board }?
> 
> Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is voting handled in such case (mechanics)?
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other stakeholders.
> 
> I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn’t entirely good. I’d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss mailing lists as well.
> 
> I’d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs.

I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement.  In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock.  I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority.

>>> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter.
>> 
>> I think you misunderstood the proposal.  The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses  proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect.
> 
> You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that’s not what I remember reading in the proposal.
> 
> I’m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs.

I will propose 60 days discussion before the Board makes a decision on fees, and 60 days notice before such decision takes effect.

Alan Barrett