Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Sun Nov 10 21:04:50 UTC 2019

It is perfectly fine to give the Board the duty to arbiter issues on
this process. As said before *this is always an exceptional* situation
and the PDP is strongly connected to membership. As the Board members
are elected in a well defined process and supposedly have trust of
majority of members is fair enough to let them arbiter this scenario
when needed. They are a well established body and much less suggestible
to external interference.
Remember, their involvement is exceptional so there is not much to worry
about. And it works similar in other RIRs where, as described by Jordi,
the Board has different levels of involvement when necessary.


On 10/11/2019 17:52, Owen DeLong wrote:



>> On Nov 10, 2019, at 02:15 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>> Hi Andrew,

>> El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at

>> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at>> escribió:

>> 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.

>> èI’m trying to avoid wasting time in the meeting. The idea is that

>> this is done up-front the meeting, not during the policy session. I’m

>> happy to change that to the nomination committee if you think that

>> will resolve the issue. As I mention in my previous email, I didn’t

>> want to use the committees references because those are called by the

>> board, so it should be the board, if those committees exist, the one

>> that delegate the functions. An alternative is to explicitly have

>> some text in the policy that indicates that the board is that “top

>> responsible, but it must delegate that functions thru a nomination

>> committee”, without entering in this policy on the details of that

>> committee. What do you think ?.


> I think that the situation where no co-chair attends the meeting is

> rare and exceptional enough that using some time at the meeting to

> nominate and elect a chair pro tem is a perfectly valid solution and

> that any other solution presented so far is problematic.


> Also, assuming that we know before the meeting that the co-chairs will

> be unable to attend is a perilous assumption to build into the

> process, IMHO.


>> */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?

>> Yes, definitively, word autocorrection made a trouble here!


> Personally, I am opposed to term limits. We have elections. Co-Chairs

> are up for re-election no less than every two years. If people want a

> new co-chair, they can easily vote for that. Why deprive voters of

> choice? Do you not trust the electorate to make good choices?

>> */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 3.3.1, we have:

>> “In addition to the candidate’s biographical information, nominations

>> must include specific information that allows assessing their

>> contribution, participation and experience in the PDWG. The

>> candidates must also provide information about what they will like to

>> achieve during their term, possible improvements to the PDWG, etc.”

>> Because AFRINIC (board -> nomination committee) will check all the

>> information, they will verify that the candidate has been there for 6

>> months, can be re-elected (if is the case), provide their

>> biographical information and some statement about what they want to

>> achieve. Only if all that has been provided, is an acceptable

>> candidate. However, keep reading …


> I am very hesitant to open the can of worms wherein the board is

> allowed to deem RPD co-chair candidates acceptable or not. Am I the

> only one that sees this as a serious avenue for abuse of the process

> to stack the deck on available candidates?


> My statement here in no way accuses or reflects on the current AfriNIC

> board. It is a question of procedural abuse that I would raise in any

> such construct regardless of the trust or esteem I held for the board

> in question. These rules should be intended to last well beyond the

> current board and must, therefore, consider any possible board makeup.


>> */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.

>> If the board->nomination committee, receives any information that is

>> relevant and confirmed (so not a “rumour”), it could be publish and

>> any candidate be disqualified. Let me have an example. A candidate

>> has been divorced 10 times. Is that relevant to the community?

>> Clearly not. However, a candidate has been elected as the chair of an

>> ISPs association and then has not followed his duties and this can be

>> publicly confirmed (example, a press release from the association

>> indicating that they fired its chair). Do you think the candidate is

>> acceptable? The board can decide if publishing a link to the

>> (already) public information, so the community knows when voting, or

>> directly disqualify the candidate.


> This is a _REALLY_ bad idea, IMHO. The board should not be

> preemptively disqualifying candidates on judgment calls in lieu of the

> judgment of the community.


>> */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.

>> The statement doesn’t say that the board “can’t” publish the

>> information. But I think those objections should only be publish if

>> the candidate is disqualified because the objections have been proven.


> No… The objections and the adjudication of those objections must be

> public regardless of the outcome. To do otherwise creates a

> significant potential for abuse of process. The objections should not

> be anonymous and any anonymous objections should not be mentioned.

> Whoever raises an objection should be identified right along with said

> objection.

>> */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.


> I agree here.


>> I’ve not read recently how the nomination committee is elected, and I

>> think unless somebody raised problems on that, we should trust that

>> is working. Otherwise, that requires a different policy or procedure,

>> or the board addressing it. You don’t think so?


> The nomination committee is not what is being discussed in 3.3.2, so I

> am not sure how this comment applies to the discussion above.


>> I’m with you that participants on the committees aren’t valid

>> candidates, but is not that part already of those procedures, or

>> should we mention it here?


> You are proposing a new procedures document that will supersede the

> existing one. As such, it should be mentioned here.


>> Similarly, I’m with you about the segregation of functions, but I

>> already responded to this in a previous email, so not repeating it

>> here. I also think that it is “easier” for the community if the board

>> members do not participate in the discussions, **however** they have

>> the full right to do so, as community members (as well as chairs),

>> and the only requisite (as we do in IETF and all the other RIRs) is

>> that if they express a personal opinion, they clearly say “hat off

>> this is my personal view on this”, and this personal opinion is not

>> used in a decision for ratifying or not a policy (ratification should

>> be based on “has the process been followed? Has this policy a crazy

>> impact on the membership and endangers this organization?”).


> Agreed, but the above 3.3.2 language puts the board as the final and

> ultimate arbiter of the appeals process and that is not a good idea.


> Owen



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list