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

[Paschal Ochang]

Hello Jordi,
Find below my comments.

On Friday, November 8, 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:


> Hi Pascal,

>

>

>

> Thanks for your inputs, let me answer below, in-line.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 8/11/19 4:32, "Paschal Ochang" <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.

>    -

>

>  That means the proposal is triggering an election for a sitting cochair

who hasn't finished his term and therefore he has to stand in for elections
again because of a cochair candidate originating from his country. Again
this brings in an unnecessary electoral burden. It's as if the telling the
sitting cochair "hey the candidate or elected cochair is from your country
therefore even if you have done one year your sit is up for elections".



>    -

>

>

>

> 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?

>    -

>

>

I will suggest we remove details of financial benefits from the proposal.
However I can't say if AFRINIC gives a stipend or a sitting allowance per
PPM which from my perception I feel they do.



>    -

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

Correct me if I am wrong I don't think the proposal explains the modus
opererandi of the electronic voting process in detail. If I get you
correctly voters can register on RPD and go to sleep and resurface during
elections to vote. If I recall vividly candidates profiles are usually not
published 6 months before the meeting therefore I feel someone eligible to
vote can get to know about the elections and be interested at the period of
announcement of elections and candidates or even during the meeting where
elections take place. If voting is to be done before the meeting as stated,
does that mean candidates can win an election in absentia just like in the
case of a candidate  who was disqualified for not being able to give a
presentation due to health grounds in Uganda so based on your analogy that
means he would have been voted for 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>

> wrote:

>

> Hello.

>

> 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.

>

> Fernando

>

> 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!

>

>

>

> 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

>

>

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

> 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.

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191109/b2144de2/attachment-0001.html>