[rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"

[Fernando Frediani]

It is quiet common Board to be involved in the PDP and they are only on 
exceptional situations as described in the proposal. This is like that 
in other RIRs too.
I find this is the best model the situation board gets involved and it 
works well when needed.

Fernando

On 09/11/2019 02:19, Andrew Alston wrote:

>

> Coupla comments on this one:

>

> */In 3.3: /**/If both Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the 

> PPM, the Board will on-the-spot designate a nonconflictive Chair for 

> the session, that will be assisted by the staff/*

>

> *//*

>

> I don’t believe the board should designate, it should preferably be an 

> on the spot nomination and floor election by show of hands or other 

> mechanism at the meeting.  There has been and should remain separation 

> between the board and the PDP process – since it is the boards duty to 

> ratify the process followed to declare consensus on any policy passed, 

> and hence, should a designate declare consensus on any policy, you 

> create a conflict of interest situation.

>

> */In 3.3.1 Bullet point 6: PDWG Chairs will each serve staggered 

> two-year terms. PDWG Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive 

> term but are illegible to run again after a minimum one-year pause. /*

>

> */__/*

>

> Should that not say they are eligible after a minimum one-year pause?  

> I presume that’s a typo?

>

> */In 3.3.2 Bullet point 7: AFRINIC will communicate the names of 

> acceptable candidates to the RPD List, announcing where candidate 

> information will be published./*

>

> *//*

>

> This is ambiguous in my view point – you state in bullet point 3 of 

> the same section that anyone who has been part of the RPD list for a 

> minimum of 6 months may participate, in section 3.3.1 you specify a 

> one year minimum pause – but beyond that – what does acceptable mean?  

> This needs some kind of definition – and I’d be quite happy to say 

> explicitly that if those 2 criteria are met, they are eligible and 

> then let the community decide, but if it does mean more than that, it 

> needs less ambiguity.

>

> */In 3.3.2 Bullet Point 8: A period of 10 calendar days will then 

> begin during which the community will be able to contribute relevant 

> information on the candidates. This information, if confirmed, may be 

> published simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day 

> following the end of the 10-day period. As a result of that 

> information, the Board could disqualify any candidate./*

>

> This represents a big problem to me.  It states as a result of the 

> information the board may disqualify any candidate.  This is wide open 

> and allows the arbitrary disqualification of candidates.  If someone 

> is to be disqualified, it should be on the grounds of not meeting a 

> defined set of acceptable criteria – that are published and known and 

> codified in policy.  Anything else could result in similar conflict of 

> interest to that mentioned in the first point in this email.

>

> */In 3.3.2 Bullet point 9: If any objections are raised by a member of 

> the community, such objections must be communicated to the Board 

> within 7 calendar days of the announcement of the results. The Board 

> will then assess whether such objections are significant and have been 

> proven. If no objections are raised, or if those aren’t considered, 

> will proceed to ratify the winning candidate./*

>

> I would prefer this be done in a more open manner.  That is to say 

> that if an objection is raised, the objection and the consideration 

> thereof should be made public.  The community should be able to see 

> the objections and why they were adjudicated in a particular manner.

>

> */In 3.3.2 final point: The Board is the highest instance of appeal in 

> matters relating to the election process. The board may delegate some 

> or all of the required functions into the Election and Nomination 

> Committees./*

>

> *//*

>

> I would prefer this be handled by an appeal committee appointed 

> outside of the electoral process, and whose members are ineligible for 

> participation in the main election.  Again, I do not believe that the 

> board should be involved in the functioning of the PDP since it is 

> they that have to ratify policy that comes through the process. Hence, 

> as per a few of my other points – I would prefer clear segregation.  

> While I acknowledge and fully agree that a board member, in his 

> personal capacity, has every right to participate in discussions 

> around a policy – since board members are naturally members of the 

> community, I do not believe that they should hold a position to 

> influence anything in the election of a candidate.

>

> Thanks

>

> Andrew

>

> *From:*JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 November 2019 17:04

> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net

> *Subject:* [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: 

> "Chairs Elections Process"

>

> 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!

>

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> 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

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191109/4e0a4c7f/attachment-0001.html>