[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Bope Domilongo Christian]

Dear CEO,

[speaking as a member of the community]

Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others
points raised by the community which was not in your original document,
here my response.


1.  *On the Accountability Review.*

This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which
identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very
important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the
community will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA
functions.

So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required
attention and the consensual approach is more needed.

It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements
due to lack of consensus.

*2. on the Process*

It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern
thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus.
Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough
Consensus Model *[1]*.

Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of
archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted.

That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a
committee to lead the process.



*3. On the discussion.*

Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were
convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and
intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement.
We shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the
disagreement views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH
CONSENSUS.

Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions
even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the
bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than
60 days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more
members to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation
period"

*4. On the other points.*

Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested.

For example, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/
2016-June/000350.html lists some of the points

*[1]* https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4


Regards,
Bope

On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Date: *Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
> *To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Cc: *"members-discuss at afrinic.net" <members-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
> changes
>
>
>
>
>
> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry <Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> …
>
>
>
> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members  to
> acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving
> voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this
> membership category instead.
>
>
>
> Boubakar +1
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members-Discuss mailing list
> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160919/8f66cbe6/attachment.html>