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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Dewole,

 

I can answer this for all the RIRs, as I’m active in all their PDPs.

 

I will wait a few hours before answering other inputs, so other folks can provide different views.

 

So yes, all the boards have different degree of participation in the PDP. At a minimum all them ratify the policies (and can decide not to ratify them). Several also ratify PDP chair (or equivalent) candidates, take care of appeals, etc. Some times they do directly, or sometimes they do via commitees.

 

This is true regardless of the differences in the PDPs among the regions, and it must be understood, because even if the PDP is a “higher” level than the board (board represents only the members of the organization, while the PDP “represents” all the Internet community), there may be policies that affect the membership, so, in some way, the board has the responsibility to take care of that.

 

Our proposal is already considering that the board, of course, can delegate part of their tasks in, for example, nomination committee, appeal committee, etc., but it think it shold be “a generic” board funcion, which *always* have the capability to delegate some of their tasks (and this should not be stated as a “must” or “can’t” in the policy text, because circumstances can change). I’m happy to add something that states “that the board can delegate some of their functions in commitees”, but as said, I don’t think such wording is needed (may be is already stated in the bylaws, I will check it as well).

 

The only exception is RIPE, where the board doesn’t have any implication (in principle) in the PDP. However, in a recent analysis impact for a policy proposal, the board stated their implication “… it is therefore unlikely that it could allow the proposal to be implemented if it is accepted by the community”.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 9/11/19 10:06, "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at forum.org.ng> escribió:

 

Could you please quote specifically the RIRs where the involvement of the board in the PDP is the norm? And in specifying those RIRs, it might be helpful to compare their policy development processes and governance structures with those at AFRINIC. 

 

My take is that AFRINIC’s board (composition, function and participation of the electorate) is just beginning to find its footing and we shouldn’t shackle the bottom-up policy development process to it just yet.

 

Regards,

Dewole.  

Sent with thumbs from a mobile device. Pelase exsuce typos adn errosr. 


Le 9 nov. 2019 à 06:46, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a écrit :

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
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ 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/20191109/3a80a9a7/attachment-0001.html>