Search RPD Archives
[rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Fri Nov 8 15:41:38 UTC 2019
I have to agree that I am also not comfortable the way text is 3.3.1
with regards chair of the same country. While I agree they should not
come form the same country as much as possible I recognized there are
exceptions where they have to be and no one should be forced out if they
became a chair already.
There are two situations where I believe 2 chairs from the same country
1) When there are no other acceptable candidates from other countries
(eg: 1 single candidate form the same country as the current chair or
all candidates from the same country of the chair)
2) When there is a vacant position that AfricNic Board has to fulfill
With regards the traveling expenses mentioned I don't think they should
be in the PDP. While I believe the RIR should always cover that given
the importance of the role to the RIR community it is discretionary and
up to them to decide that. Furthermore I don't think having this in the
PDP can oblige the RIR to do anyway as it's a administrative decision.
I agree with section 3.3.2 in regards the minimum time to be able to
participate in the election process. It brings a lot of value into the
process and avoid big issues of non-related people influencing the
process. This part for me is one of the most important of the proposal.
On 08/11/2019 04:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Hi Pascal,
> Thanks for your inputs, let me answer below, in-line.
> El 8/11/19 4:32, "Paschal Ochang" <pascosoft at gmail.com
> <mailto:pascosoft at gmail.com>> escribió:
> Hello this is a great proposal but I have some concerns about some of
> the newly adopted procedures.
> In section 3.3.1 I don't think it will be right for a chair who has
> held the position longest to vacate the position in a scenario where
> the cochairs originate from the same country in extreme scenarios.
> While we aim to select algorithms to minimize the possibility of a
> vacant seat at any point in time we should also try not to break the
> wheel of experience here. A longer serving cochair will be more
> conversant with the affairs of the PDWG in most cases so I think
> vacating his or her seat won't be ideal.
> * While I could agree here in your view, I think that there must be
> a balance in giving opportunity to new people. The text already
> gives the opportunity to the chairs to take a decision on that.
> Note also, that if the chair that has been longer time in the
> position hasn’t exceeded the two consecutive terms, he still can
> submit his candidacy for that election, so it is giving the voice
> to the community about that. On the other hand, we may have a
> longer time in the position chair that is not performing well
> (even if it has more experience) so the community has a way to not
> vote him again. It is a difficult balance. I will like to hear
> from you and others specific suggestions about this point.
> Secondly while we aim to sanitize the motives for people contesting
> for cochair I don't think a little stipend for co-chairs will do any
> damage to the election process for me I think a per sitting allowance
> or stipend should be adopted if not already so.
> * AFRINIC (I believe) support the chairs in their traveling expenses
> to the meeting and from time to time to other RIR meetings. Is not
> that sufficient? Otherwise, what you will suggest? Should we have
> that (even for traveling expenses) in the PDP?
> section 3.3.2 will disenfranchise voters. It's possible a deprived
> voter might not be active in the rpd but has been abreast with the
> happenings of the community. Therefore are we going to say we cannot
> allow that voter to cast his or her vote?. A deprived voter might be
> attending a PPM for the first time and will feel disenfranchised
> because I believe the presentation of the candidates is also an
> incentive to motivate or give voters an idea of their portfolio which
> I think is enough to orientate a newbie attendee if I may use that
> phrase .
> Without elaborating or handling some of this concerns I think this
> proposal cannot be accepted as it is.
> * Note that I’m asking only for having been in the RPD list for 6
> months. I’m not asking for demonstrating “activity”. I my opinion
> this will fulfil the case you’re indicating in your first case.
> * Regarding a newcomer participating as voter, I’ve seen in many RIR
> meetings, including AFRINIC, a bunch (even hundreds) of local
> students, participating for the first time as guest. 99% of those
> participants will never participate again in AFRINIC, RPD, etc.
> Hundreds of them can vote for a specific candidate, without
> knowing at all nothing about the candidate or the PDP, for
> example, just because the candidate is local. Of course, in some
> cases that candidate can be a very valid one, however nothing
> ensures it and further this is a distortion of the process and
> very discriminatory towards the other candidates. For example, the
> other candidates can say “I’ve organized a remote hub so the
> people can participate in a remote meeting room” (and get there
> hundreds of people that possibly will support that candidacy). I
> think those newcomers can perfectly understand, if they are
> interested in a continued AFRINIC participation, shy those rules
> are done and this specific point will not, for that, feel
> uncomfortable or decide not to continue participating because
> that, in the other way around “next time I will be voting”. Is
> like when you need to have 18 years to vote. Reason for that is
> that you have some degree of “adult thinking, life experience,
> public policy understanding, etc.”; here we are saying your
> experience to be able to participate is having been there for a
> few months.
> * Note that a participant in the meeting if really interested in
> AFRINIC, has been able to be in the RPD list much more time ahead
> the meeting, so nothing forbids him to actually participate.
> * Last but not least, the way that electronic voting is organized is
> based on using the RPD list as the electoral census. NOBODY will
> vote “on-site”, the election is done BEFORE the meeting.
> * As said, happy to heard inputs on those specific points (and in
> general in all the proposal, of course!):
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2019, Fernando Frediani
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
> The text of the proposal is well written and I believe brings
> value to the election process with control mechanisms to ensure
> neutrality and balance of the chosen persons.
> One important point I highlight is that staff when implementing
> this make sure a trustable electronic system is used to ensure one
> vote by participant and to avoid fraud. I guess something about
> that will be contained in the impact analysis that will come.
> On 05/11/2019 11:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Hi all,
> As with the previous ones, I'm attaching our proposal PDF, already submitted, so the community can start commenting in case the publication by AFRINIC is delayed.
> Thanks in advance for any inputs!
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> The IPv6 Company
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> The IPv6 Company
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD