Search RPD Archives
election controversy? - Re: Handover to new PDWG co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Sat Jun 18 09:38:47 UTC 2011
I'm happy to help to the extent my assistance is desired.
I am, however, out of region and recognize that AfriNIC is for Africans, both
in terms of the services it provides and in terms of who should manage the
organization.
I tend to be rather opinionated, but, you are certainly welcome to ignore
whatever I say.
Owen
On Jun 18, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> I think we are coming to the point and full agreement that we need some
> written policies/process for elections closely knitted to the mandate of
> the NomCom.
>
> I am sure that NomCom will come up with the required recommendations in
> due time.
>
> I guess we need to pull a piece of paper and look at the proposal document
> so that within upcoming times if faced with same situation we would know
> how to go about it. But pretty much agree with thread from Owen and Mark.
>
> As I see, this is an agreement to work on a process/policy document and
> we would need the input from all to kick this document off. Owen, I am in
> for working together and anyone else to start the work on this.
>
> Perhaps, we can now change the subject to something else :) like proposal
> for an Elections policy document or the likes.
>
> Kris
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "mje at posix.co.za" <mje at posix.co.za>
> Organization: Posix Systems
> Reply-To: "mje at posix.co.za" <mje at posix.co.za>
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 10:54:53 +0200
> To: Krishna Seeburn <kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu>
> Cc: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>, Walubengo J <jwalu at yahoo.com>,
> "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]
>
>> 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
>>
>
More information about the RPD
mailing list