Search RPD Archives
election controversy? - Re: Handover to new PDWG co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
Kris Seeburn
kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu
Sat Jun 18 09:44:51 UTC 2011
I guess opinions as far as adding value and constructive towards positive
changes can always be helpful.
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:38:47 -0700
To: Krishna Seeburn <kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu>
Cc: "mje at posix.co.za" <mje at posix.co.za>, 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]
>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%20
>>>>1/
>>>> 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