Search RPD Archives
[rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Tue Nov 12 20:28:35 UTC 2019
Hello Anthony
The point specifically about the Co-chairs be or not form the same
country is a good practice to avoid monopolization from a single country.
You are right that 'in theory' the only thing that should matter are the
candidate requirements, but in practice it may lead to scenarios where
there is a major participation of people from a specific country and
they may vote for someone just because he/she is from the same country
without knowing anything about the person.
While I don't consider this a very critical thing as for example the 6
month period to be able to vote, I think it avoids that possibility I
mentioned which is what is more likely to happen.
Fernando
On 12/11/2019 15:56, Anthony Ubah wrote:
>
> Hello Jordie and Souad,
>
> I’ve just gone through your proposal. Having once contested for a
> chair as co-chair I quite recognize a need to revisit the election
> process. However, I don’t agree with the crust of this proposal.
>
> The stated problem being addressed (below) is accurate, nevertheless
> personally I find that several areas are debatable, t’s as evident in
> the views on the mail trails so far.
>
> *“The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses very briefly
> how the chairs are chosen. However, there is not sufficient detail
> about the candidate requirements, neither a complete process.”*
>
> Most observations I have made have already been brought previously
> highlighted and brought forward by other members of the community, and
> I see that you(Jordi) have painstakingly tried to address a few of
> them, but I will still want to reiterate a few of mine.
>
> From section 3.3.1
>
> *• Both chairs can’t be from the same country,*
>
> *except in exceptional situations where there are*
>
> *no other acceptable candidates, in which case one*
>
> *of the chairs will cease in their position at the*
>
> *following election process (following year), either*
>
> *because their term has come to an end or by*
>
> *agreement among the two chairs, failing which*
>
> *the chair who has held the position the longest*
>
> *will automatically cease in their position*
>
> Ant: I am an advocate for freedom and transparency, thus I strongly
> disagree with any form of restrictions due to the country of origin or
> resident of the co-chairs. Nomination and election should be a matter
> of substance. Like Daniel said */“Else we may be trading competency
> for representative”/*. The focus should be on the candidates’
> competence and motivation.
>
> From Section 3.3.2
>
> *3.3.2 About the election of the Chairs*
>
> *• Voting will be conducted electronically, using*
>
> *mechanisms to ensure, as much as possible, that*
>
> *each voter can cast only one vote.*
>
> Ant:
>
> 1.Through what electronic means?
>
> 2.Solely remote voting? When can the community meet and interact with
> the candidates, or do we rely solely on credentials and public
> opinions? If so, then what is the need for waiting till the next PPM?
> Run an election, conclude and announce results on online.
>
> 3.How can voters be identified for transparency in eligibility and
> vote counting?
>
> 4.What mechanism is put in place to detect multiple accounts run by
> one person? Because we might be an advent of a scenario of account
> squatting for voting purposes. Where one person will register multiple
> dummy accounts in anticipation of election time.
>
> 5.How can off-net collusion be detected?
>
> *• Anyone who has been part of the RPD List for at*
>
> *least 6 months prior to the start of the election*
>
> *process may participate.*
>
> Ant: Fair
>
> *• Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even*
>
> *when by persons clearly supportive of a*
>
> *candidate, may result in their disqualification, if*
>
> *there is evidence of collusion.*
>
> Ant: This is controversial. A member can disenfranchise a candidate by
> running a pseudo campaign in his favour, just to have that candidate
> or both disqualified in favour of another. Simply put, one less voter
> for one less Candidate. Very unbalanced.
>
> **
>
> *• AFRINIC will communicate the names of*
>
> *Acceptable candidates to the RPD List,*
>
> *announcing where candidate information will be *
>
> *published.*
>
> The term acceptable candidate reflects in bullet point 3 of 3.3.1 and
> bullet point 7 of 3.3.2. Are there separate criteria stipulated for
> candidates to measure who fall within the “acceptable” threshold, or
> is it the same as voter eligibility as stated in bullet point 3 of
> 3.3.2? If not, what other criteria do you recommend for eligibility?
>
> **
>
> *• 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.*
>
> Ant: Quite Ambiguous. Kindly rephrase.
>
> *• Voting will begin on the first working Monday*
>
> *after the period specified above and will remain*
>
> *open for 7 calendar days*.
>
> Ant: When can the community meet and interact with the candidates?
>
> *• 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.*
>
> Ant: As I said before, I am an advocate of a transparent system. I
> think narrowing a lot of things down to the Board is a way for locking
> the larger community away from critical decisions.
>
> Drifting off a bit to the second trail on the subject matter. The
> existing election process might not be perfect, but the influence of
> the local community should not be frowned at. The community is
> encouraged to grow, and there is no better opportunity to do that than
> by driving active participation of the host community as was witnessed
> in Kampala, where a lot of IT students participated actively throughout.
>
> Curbing the local influence of the host country/”newcomer voter’ in
> the election process will achieve infinitesimal gain. Since the
> Bi-annual PPM is shifted across regions it solves itself organically.
>
> In conclusion, I think the intention of initiating this proposal is
> very noble, but I would suggest a comprehensive review. It is not ready.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Anthony
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *UBAH ANTHONY **IKECHUKWU ***
>
> Goldspine Nigeria
>
> E-mail: anthony.ubah at goldspine.com <mailto:anthony.ubah at gloworld.com>.ng
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:23 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Fernando Frediani)
> 2. Re: new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs
> Elections Process" (Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:01:58 -0300
> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy
> Message-ID: <fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722 at gmail.com
> <mailto:fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722 at gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> In practice this situation you describe is very hard to happen, we
> cannot have things in place to treat the very unlikely situation and
> that Phase 2 is about to happen soon. Until there the vast
> majority or
> organization (really the vast!) can get addresses from AfriNic fine.
> I hardly doubt one can justify anything more than a /13 at once at
> the
> moment. Even in a remote hypothesis that is possible the organization
> can receive the /13 and work with that until transfers are allowed as
> per Jordi's proposal that has been changed to start with Phase 2 is
> triggered and that organization will be able to transfer whatever
> else
> is needed.
> One rule for all and much simpler.
>
> Fernando
>
> On 10/11/2019 18:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Nov 10, 2019, at 10:51 , Chevalier du Borg
> <virtual.borg at gmail.com <mailto:virtual.borg at gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:virtual.borg at gmail.com
> <mailto:virtual.borg at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le?dim. 10 nov. 2019 ??21:58, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za
> <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>
> >> <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>>> a ?crit?:
> >>
> >> Hi Chevalier.
> >>
> >> Please allow me to be blunt.? That's short sighted.
> >>
> >> We cannot transfer IN from other regions unless we allow OUT.
> >>
> >>
> >> Agree 100%,
> >> Then you have no problems with wait till all RIRs are equal run
> out
> >> before we etablish full in and out transfer policy no?
> >>
> >> All the other RIRs require reciprocal *compatible* policies,
> >> which means bi-directional transfers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All RIRs don't all have equal amount of free space. Big difference
> >
> > Depending on your definition here, 4 out of 5 have exactly equal
> > amount == 0.
> >
> >> Not allowing this means we can't get resources in either.
> >>
> >>
> >> While AfriNIC have free space, operators don't need it
> >> When it run out, then we can allow transfer policy
> >
> > This isn?t entirely true.
> >
> > It?s possible that an operator needs more than they can get via
> > current AfriNIC policies due to ?soft landing? limitations.
> >
> > In such a case, said operator might prefer to transfer a large
> amount
> > of space in even if they are paying for it on the market
> > rather than suffer with the small amount of space they can get from
> > AfriNIC due to the current restrictions.
> >
> > Is there a valid reason to preclude such a transfer which, in
> reality,
> > prolongs the AfriNIC free pool to the benefit of other
> > organizations in Africa?
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20191110/6961beb6/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:22:39 +0000
> From: Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
> <mailto:muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:
> "Chairs Elections Process"
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAL_ZvK5xNb=LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Owen see reply in line below
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 9:03 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com
> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 10, 2019, at 02:15 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> >
> > El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston"
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
> > escribi?:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > ? I?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.
> >
>
> Caleb : A clear example of what happened in Kampala where we had
> only a
> Co-chair supported by staff to chair a meeting. How will a single
> co-chair
> measure rough concensus?
>
> What you can't predict is visa rejections or if there is a travel
> ban on
> the country that one of the co-chair is from.
> Imagine a scenario where the two co-chairs are from the same
> country as
> canvassed by some members on this list, what happens at that PDP
> meeting
> when any or both of them suffers visa rejection or there is a
> civil unrest
> in that country leading to travel ban?
>
> We should in most case see the call to even ensure that no two
> Co-chair
> emanate from the same country to reduce the risk exposure of the
> PDPWG and
> uneventful scenarios like that.
>
> >
> >
> > *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?
> >
>
> Caleb: I do see a valid point of of argument here and I'm sure the
> co-authors have taking note of your point.
>
>
> >
> > *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.
> >
>
> Caleb:The last i checked, there are election and nomination
> committees with
> just a board representative.
>
> The process I think allows for an open call for Expression of
> Interest for
> anyone who wants to participate in that committee which is
> independent of
> the board but has a board representation in that committee that
> provides
> guidance and also give feedback to the board.
>
>
> >
> > *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.
> >
> >
> Caleb : I think the lexicon use of board as against the Nomination &
> Elections Committee can serve as an alternative.
>
> >
> > 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.*
> >
> >
> > Caleb : A suggestion here for governance Committee will be
> appropriate.
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
> Caleb Ogundele
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20191110/68602c38/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 56
> ************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191112/98b5b137/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list