Search RPD Archives
election controversy? - Re: Handover to new PDWG co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
Mark Elkins
mje at posix.co.za
Sat Jun 18 08:54:53 UTC 2011
On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 08:34 +0400, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> @All,
>
>
> I pretty much agree, that the points have been made and we need to
> move on. Nevertheless ensuring n+1 candidate is quite a challenge, as
> this is and will be a major concern over the next few years yet to
> come. NomCom is always trying it's best to get more people but the
> interest remains very minimal from candidates. Sometimes, like last
> year we were worried not to have even one candidate and we were
> thinking what next (What next is not defined within the bylaws and
> would surely imply a NomCom decision or Board – but it is not defined
> anywhere).
I stand to correction but I believe there is something that states for
Board members - if there is no one to replace an existing member - then
the existing member stays on. The same principal could be extended to
other positions?
Currently - there is nothing in the NomCom mandate that states they
should go out and hunt for volunteers. That could be changed?
> I think the proposal here is to come up with a clear cut policy on
> elections of PDWG / NRO etc., which caters for one candidate issues
> and even on situations of refusal of candidates by community and also
> if we do not have a candidate what will be the next steps forward.
> These are not written anywhere and still is a real challenge and will
> be if we continue on having less and less interest.
I seem to remember that in Johannesburg (Nov 2010) - the community sort
of requested (asked really nicely) for both SM and Alan to stay on (or
become?) the PDWG.
If we can not develop an N+1 policy for elections - then maybe we need
to actually state that if the number of volunteers for a position
matches the need - that part of any election process becomes redundant?
> For each and everyone this has been a major lesson to be learned which
> is good governance practices and community voice. I do think a
> proposal on this also needs to be made towards the election of these
> positions as we tend to use the straight off bylaws of Afrinic for the
> board to tackle the elections for all. I would tend to think and say
> fine at this point we all agree that NomCom could have done a better
> job but we do not have clear process that still creates a flux.
NomCom could have done a better job. That could in part be blamed on its
mandate not being to clear in places - which *is* a change I'd like to
see. NomCom is going though a process of self-examination and will come
up with its own suggestions - I'd rather not comment any further.
> Maybe I could again suggest we take note and work on a policy proposal
> for future taking on recommendations from all as we normally do and
> have it approved?
>
>
> If we can agree on this then perhaps we can surely get community views
> together for the coming up of a policy on this so that we are all
> pretty much agreeable to the process. One note though we can never
> anticipate all the potential happenings in the future but I guess the
> point is made over the last few threads.
>
>
> kris
>
>
>
>
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:03:43 -0700
> To: Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Krishna Seeburn <kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu>, "sm
> +afrinic at elandsys.com" <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: election controversy? - Re: Handover to new PDWG
> co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
>
>
>
> Walu,
>
>
> I don't think this sets a precedent outside of these unique
> circumstances. Personally, I would think the better
> solution would be to require the NomCom to recruit at least n
> +1 candidates for each election. With such a requirement,
> these circumstances can't be repeated.
>
>
> I agree the NomCom could have handled the situation better and
> I think getting community confirmation of the result is a good
> idea. However, I think that's been well stated and it is time
> to move on. I doubt the NomCom will repeat this error anytime
> soon.
>
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:44 AM, Walubengo J wrote:
>
> > @Owen,
> >
> > Initially, I also thought it was "much ado about nothing"
> > given the fact of 2 candidates, 2 positions, one of which
> > already requested by one the candidates. So why go through
> > the empty motions of voting(by acclamation, secret ballot,
> > show of hands or whatever) when the outcome is obvious?
> >
> > One member of the community told me the problem lies not in
> > the recently held PDWG elections. But in future elections
> > where a precedent set today maybe used (abused?) in future
> > elections. E.g NomComm may present candidates and declare
> > results immediately - even where prevailing circumstances
> > dont exactly justify - after all the community will already
> > have been "conditioned" to such a procedure and may fail to
> > detect anything...
> >
> > I liked what Krishna did last year in Joburg when we I think
> > we had only one candidate for the ASO rep; he still went
> > through the (empty?) motions and this had the effect of
> > "community participation" even though the outcome was
> > obvious. Maybe something the Board will need to document
> > since there's nothing explicitly written on what to do when
> > technically there's "no competition" given that current
> > rules presumed and provided for what to do when there is
> > competition(many candidates)...
> >
> > walu.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 6/16/11, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> > Subject: Re: election controversy? - Re: Handover to
> > new PDWG co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
> > To: "Kris Seeburn" <kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu>
> > Cc: "sm+afrinic at elandsys.com" <sm
> > +afrinic at elandsys.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
> > <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Date: Thursday, June 16, 2011, 10:25 PM
> >
> > I wasn't there, either, but, this sounds like "Much
> > ado about nothing" to me.
> >
> > It seems that the NomCom saw that there were 2
> > candidates. That one of two
> > candidates had declared himself as running strictly
> > for the 1-year term.
> >
> > Since there is no "none-of-the-above" or write-in
> > (as I understand it) in such
> > an election, what purpose would have been served by
> > the time and trouble
> > of conducting an election?
> >
> > While I agree that a democratic process is
> > important, in a situation where you
> > have only 2 eligible candidates for two electable
> > positions and one of the
> > candidates has self-selected for the shorter term,
> > it seems to me that any
> > election beyond that would be purely theatrical and
> > not democratic in nature.
> >
> > As I understand it, the following is not in dispute:
> >
> > + The PDPWG co-chairs were properly nominated
> > + One of the co-chairs stood for election
> > only to the shorter term
> > + There was no possible different outcome
> > from an election under
> > the circumstances
> >
> > It seems to me that the only dispute arises from the
> > fact that the NomCom,
> > recognizing these facts chose to skip the theatrical
> > election and deliver the
> > (obvious) result without the pomp and circumstance.
> >
> > Personally, I think the community has better uses of
> > their time pursuing real
> > issues such as IPv6 deployment or the fact that only
> > 2 candidates stood for
> > election rather than getting wrapped around the axel
> > about a shortcut to the
> > process which was inconsequential in nature and
> > would not have been taken
> > were there any chance of a different outcome.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:23 PM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> >
> > > general question here is that : Are we talking
> > about "vice de procedures" or in english "procedural
> > error" ? Sorry people i was not at the elections but
> > am trying to undedstand.
> > >
> > > Perhaps "ashok" can give his legal opinion on this
> > situation despite the fact that the election has
> > been done. Although from what i am
> > understanding....a general question arise : are we
> > questioning the election of the two candidates or
> > are we questioning the mandate that was allotted to
> > the two persons?
> > >
> > > Kris Seeburn
> > >
> > > On Jun 15, 2011, at 11:05 PM, sm
> > +afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> At 07:57 AM 6/15/2011, gift wrote:
> > >>> Nomcom is not sure how the issue of the election
> > has come up during the hand over process.
> > >>
> > >> Dr Paulos asked about the legitimacy of the PDWG
> > Co-chairs. I congratulated
> > >> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda and Tim McGinnis on their
> > election previously
> > ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001688.html ). I have also mentioned that I do not have any issue with the appointment of the two new PDWG co-chairs ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001772.html ).
> > >>
> > >>> However, since this issue has been brought up
> > publicly, in the spirit of transparency, we will
> > endeavor to comment so that the record is placed
> > straight and also to give an official version of
> > what transpired to the incoming PDWG Co Chairs and
> > other members who were not at AfriNIC 14. There are
> > no legitimacy issues arising from the election as a
> > >>
> > >> As Tim McGinnis was participating remotely, he
> > probably knows what happened during the PDWG
> > election part of the open public policy meeting.
> > Trevor Mwangi raised an interesting point about
> > remote participants registering their protest
> > ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001782.html ).
> > >>
> > >>> final poll was carried without any dissension.
> > It is also incorrect for S. Moonesamy to suggest
> > that members were denied their voice at the meeting:
> > >>>
> > >>> "I hope that any future NomCom will respond to
> > community
> > >>> feedback instead of ignoring objections from the
> > floor."
> > >>
> > >> The quoted text does not include any suggestion
> > that "members were denied their voice at the
> > meeting".
> > >>
> > >>> concerned there are no outstanding issues
> > relating to the concluded PDWG Co Chair elections as
> > was witnessed during the meeting hence the formal
> > announcement by the ACEO. The job of Nomcom is to
> > work with the membership to deliver a democratic
> > election and in the process to deal with any arising
> > challenges. In the end a member's verdict was
> > delivered. We should also accept that what
> > transpired at the elections is a learning
> > opportunity to further deepen the community's
> > democratic and corporate governance systems. Nomcom
> > will accordingly be making the necessary
> > recommendations in its report on the elections.
> > >>
> > >> There isn't any "membership" for the PDWG. "It
> > is expected that the NomCom will oversee all open
> > elections conducted by AfriNIC during a given year,
> > namely Board Seats, Policy Working Group Chairs and
> > NRO-NC representatives". "A democratic election" is
> > not about displaying the list of candidates on a
> > slide and announcing the results within a few
> > seconds on the next slide
> > ( http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/images/stories/af14_slides/Day%201/Gift%20Shava%20-%20PDWG%20co-chairs%20election.pdf ). Fortunately, participants came to the microphone and objected to that.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think that the community has a need for a
> > "democratic and corporate governance system". If
> > Frank and Andrew can agree on whether questions are
> > constructive
> > ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001781.html ), Sunday Folayan can walk to the microphone and have his objections taken into account, Graham Beneke and Trevor Mwangi can ask questions without being present at the meeting, J. Walubengo and Mark Elkins can come to the microphone like any other participant, it is left to the community to appreciate whether it is an open and fair process where people can discuss and reach consensus.
> > >>
> > >> It is up to the community to determine whether
> > the message posted at
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001791.html written by Gift Shava, Arbogast Fabian and Hago Dafalla is a fair representation of the events.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> S. Moonesamy
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rpd mailing list
> > >> rpd at afrinic.net
> > >>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rpd mailing list
> > > rpd at afrinic.net
> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa
/| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110618/66d773af/attachment.bin>
More information about the RPD
mailing list