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

Wed Sep 21 06:01:10 UTC 2016

Dear all,

I do have a few comments as an individual and resource member:

1. What I understand staff is doing at the moment is trying to get the
community's views on the possible changes to the bylaw as reflected in the
document shared which I expect would have been what the committee would do
as well. I would be strongly opposed to a committee that doesn't engage the
community in a manner currently done.

2. A few number of comments has been made indicating addition of new
changes to the list presented by staff and I expect that those will be
included as well.

3. Where consensus comes in here is to determine whether a particular
modification to the bylaw should even be presented on the floor in the
first place. This stage gives opportunity for the community who don't fall
within the "registered and resource members" category to raise their views
and hopefully it would convince those who have the approval rights(as per
current bylaw) to nod.

4. At the meeting, I expect that each changes proposed would be presented
as a septate package and not as a whole. However, in other to maximise our
time at the meeting, it may be good for those that seem to have
overwhelming community view against not to be presented(i.e those without
consensus). Nevertheless, if there are some part of the community who feel
strongly to include it then i think it should be included as such inclusion
doesn't imply approval afterall

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On 21 Sep 2016 5:09 a.m., "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

> ➢ Not sure.  We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work
> smoothly
>
> You are correct Alain, we did.  Except – well, somethings changed – the
> bylaws.
>
> Under the *current* bylaws, you can’t do a review and change them without
> a super majority vote.  Under the old bylaws, well, I can’t remember
> exactly what they said, but I can tell you quite categorically that there
> was no super majority vote to bring the current ones into existence – I
> hope I am correct in saying, this was because it wasn’t required under
> those bylaws not that it was simply neglected.  I know for a fact though
> that such a vote did not occur – because such a vote requires notice issued
> to the community under specific time frames in the context of a members
> meeting, and all the voting mechanisms that are needed to hold such a vote.
>
> So – what worked to change the old bylaws, is not relevant under the legal
> constraints we committed ourselves to the day the current bylaws took
> effect.  Under the change you reference, a committee could get together,
> gather ideas, formulate them into a new draft, propose it, and consensus
> could actually take you to the new bylaws.  That is simply not allowed
> under the current bylaws.
>
> Let us look for a second at what the current bylaws say:
>
> Firstly – under definitions – special resolution is defined as “A
> resolution approved by a majority of 75 percent of the votes of those
> members entitled to vote and voting on the question”
> Secondly – under section 7 (powers of members), sub-section 6.vi –
> “consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for
> the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution”
> Thirdly – under section 12.14 (Member proposals) – subsection ii, “A
> member may give written notice to the Board of a matter which the Member
> proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next Annual General
> Member Meeting called under Article 11.1 of this Constitution at which the
> member is entitled to vote”
>
> (Rest of the provisions of clause 12.14 go on to define the time lines for
> proposals and the mechanism by which it works).
>
> So – in my non-legal laymans view – what this says is.
>
> A.) You need a super majority to change the bylaws – this cannot be a
> decision of a committee.  (Combination of section 7 clauses cited and
> definitions clause cited)
> B.) Changes to the bylaws need to be formally put before an AGMM by a
> *member*, not a committee – that is not to say that a committee, either
> formed formally by AfriNIC or created in some other manner, could not give
> their proposals to a member to put to the floor – but the proposals have to
> be submitted formally through the procedures defined in section 12.14.
>
> None of this was really the case under the old bylaws – it is now the
> rules – so again, I ask you, in the context of the above, what’s the point
> of the committee?  What’s the point of consensus in this context - other
> than to judge if putting something before the floor has a hope of achieving
> the number of votes actually necessary to pass (and this is a VERY valid
> use of consensus, as a gauge, but it is not more than that)
>
> To close what I’ve said above, let me end with two quotes
>
>  “If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage.  These
> things are rarely produced by committees.  Everything that matters in our
> intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own
> mind and conscience in a room by himself” - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
>
> “It is necessary to get a lot of men together, for the show of things,
> otherwise the world will not believe.  That is the meaning of committees.
> But the real work must always be done by one or two men” – Anthony Trollope.
>
> (Btw, the second of those quotes – it may be true that people want the
> show of things – and if that is what this committee will be – a charade –
> so be it – but let’s not lose site of the fact that bylaw changes have to
> be put to the floor by individual members)
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14
> 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] [members-discuss] Accountability
> assessment - bylaws changes
>
> +1 @Alain
> Regards
> Arnaud
>
> 2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net>:
> Hi,
>
> Let’s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the
> bylawsl. I do support the idea of a committee .
>
> —Alain
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian <
> christianbope at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160921/f5e95f34/attachment.html>