[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes
Saul Stein
saul at enetworks.co.za
Wed Sep 21 08:12:10 UTC 2016
Hi,
Agreed, having associate members is beneficial in both directions and
this membership category is common an many organisations in all
industries/membership based organisations.
1) External parties have experience and knowledge in the outcome of
the organisation
2) External parties might have in interest due to interoperability
with said organisation
3) The organisation can learn from the experiences of others
Organisations that have do direct benefit in the outcomes of decisions
should not be allowed to vote since the outcome would not benefit them,
the result being their vote could be wasted!
So associate membership is a must, but no voting rights.
Category membership fees is debatable.
PS please can we keep the subject at least vaguely related to the subject
of the email.
From: Ben Roberts [mailto:Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 20 September 2016 11:44 PM
To: ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>;
members-discuss at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
While we debate what consensus means I maybe have lost the thread of what
we were looking for consensus on. ?
There was something about associate members and if they should have voting
rights I recall?
Associate member category is really for interested parties who want to
'join in' but not be part of things properly and pay the full fees and use
the services. So maybe it might include research partners, people who want
to come along to our meetings and present and sell us stuff, etc etc
So no. The associate member category should not have the same voting
benefits as a LIR member.
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:24 PM, ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net
<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net> > wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> wrote:
Ok,
We need to stop for a moment and look at reality - not wishful thinking.
Firstly - I am hearing talk of rough consensus - and while consensus is
applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them.
The ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication
of which way the vote may go on a particular issue. However, you can get
total consensus on this list and beyond - and still stand a good chance of
things not passing.
Why is this - consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive
objections have been addressed. However, a substantive objection has to
have meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are
objecting to. And those can all be addressed, but when the
non-substantive, the illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or
whatever, arguments come into it - those cannot be taken into account in
consensus. However, to accept or reject bylaw changes is not done by
consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote.
So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication - but
nothing more than that - because if people on the day go "I don't like
this, and it's not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my
vote", and they vote no, things still won't pass.
Until we amend the bylaws(as suggested by point 11 of the CEO document [
Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution]), the "Super Majority" you
are referring to means "Super Majority of the registered members (the
current Board members)". So the board could easily amend the bylaws
without involving the community if it is only the voting which matter.
By involving the community, one expects that we listen to community, helps
the community build consensus on the amendments and then adopt them by
the "Super Majority".
This community only makes decision by Rough Consensus and does not vote.
Voting is for the members who are the "Registered members".
So, let me now talk about committees - for what purpose? So that the
"committee" can propose something and people just accept it? So that the
"committee" can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the
"committee" can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice
document better than one person can?
Yes and also lead the consensus building.
It is also important to note that while amending bylaws to improve
accountability is it not advisable that "Only" interested parties (CEO,
board..) lead the process.
Guess what - it's all meaningless - because at the end of the day - no
matter who proposes, no matter what form - if members like the PRINCIPLE
behind the change, they will vote in favor of it. If they don't, no
matter who proposes it, they will vote against it. And committees,
individuals, whatever, it's all meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER
MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass. That means for every 1 vote that is cast
against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a feel good game - this is
the law. In the same way, any individual can bring something to the floor
and once its n the notice of meeting while it can be discussed on the
floor, the resolution *CANNOT BE CHANGED* other than basic minor edits -
it can only be withdrawn.
Yes - I like the idea of consensus to gauge what may or may not pass - and
I believe that is what Alan has been trying to gauge before putting things
to the floor.
End of the day though -it's a nice idea, but has zero impact on the
outcome.
Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work
smoothly
Hope this helps
-Alain
Andrew
From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com> >
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net
<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net> >
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net
<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net> >
Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net> "
<members-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto: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 < <mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net>
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 <
<mailto:christianbope at gmail.com> 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.ht
ml>
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.htm
l lists some of the points
[1] <https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability>
https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4
Regards,
Bope
On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston <
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:
I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
Thanks
Andrew
From: Mike Silber < <mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com> silber.mike at gmail.com>
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <
<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net> community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <
<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net> community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Cc: " <mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net> members-discuss at afrinic.net" <
<mailto: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 <
<mailto:Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net> 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
<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Members-Discuss mailing list
Members-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20160921/31ac8885/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list