[rpd] Co-Chair Election Process

[Fernando Frediani]

On 20/07/2020 13:39, Owen DeLong wrote:

>

> <clip>

>

> This is an absurd claim. The standard (as you mention below) is a 

> “raise of hands” vote. This mechanism even in person does not allow 

> people to verify that their vote was cast correctly, nor is it fully 

> auditable (indeed, it has no audit trail and is not at all audible).

>

> Placing more stringent requirements than exist on the current system 

> as an acceptance criteria for a system deployed urgently in a time of 

> crisis makes little sense to me.

You are not making the things easier given the circumstances and all has 
been been discussed here.
What is being said is analogous to raise of hand and is also a 
indisputable way to eliminate most possible fraud that have been pointed.

>>

>> 4 - In order to either choose another Co-Chair or to extend the 

>> current one term there must be a vote with raise of hands. There is 

>> no other way out of the PDP this can be done.

>>

>

> This statement ignores CPM section 3.6:

>

>

>           3.6  Varying the Process

>

>     The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an

>     emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some

>     provision of this document is required.

>

>      1. The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group

>         Chair.

>      2. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.

>      3. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less

>         than four weeks.

>      4. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be

>         presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

>

>

> Clearly this is the kind of exceptional circumstance in which some 

> variance could be justified.

Sorry I don't see 3.6 applying to this situation on *any* of points 
mentioned. This section is about how the policies discussion, review, 
last call, etc work  1) As I understand this decision is not up to the 
Chairs to take 2)Yes, we are working on the explanation, but who will 
give it ? Normally is whoever take the decision. 3) Nothing to do with 
elections 4) Nothing to do with the current scenario. There is no proper 
policy under discussion to be approved, only a discussion of what to do 
about the next elections.

>

> I still say that a (virtual) raising of hands using the mechanisms 

> available in nearly every conferencing system capable of supporting

> this meeting has the following advantages:

> q

> 1.Only meeting attendees may vote.

> 2.Botting your meeting attendance would be reasonably difficult, so it 

> would be difficult for a person to stuff the ballot box.

> 3.It does meet the literal requirements of the existing PDP.

> 4.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we can avoid 

> the so-called “sleeper cell” effect that some have

> put forth as a concern. (Personally, I think this is less likely in a 

> virtual meeting anyway).

> 5.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we also 

> manage to prevent (2) from being a concern.

> 6.By “reasonable bounds”, I mean pick a date certain in the past by 

> which one must have been subscribed to RPD.

> Each email subscribed to RPD is entitled to one corresponding meeting 

> registration if they choose to. No subscribed

> email, no registration for the meeting.

I quiet like this idea, and that is exactly which is under discussion in 
one of the policies that should advance, but this is not backed in any 
part of PDP as far as I know as the moment. Who will determine what date 
is this ?

> 7.My suggestions for the date certain would be the first day of the 

> originally scheduled in person AIS 2020 (May 31) or

> the originally scheduled first day of the public policy meeting (June 

> 8 IIRC).


This would make sense if there was basis for it, but currently there is 
AFAIK.

Fernando


>

> If anyone has a reason they don’t think this is viable, please express 

> it. So far, I’ve seen lots of calls for other solutions, but this

> seems to be the approach with the fewest drawbacks and which can 

> easily be implemented in time.

>

> Owen

>

>> Regards

>> Fernando

>>

>> On 20/07/2020 03:06, Daniel Yakmut wrote:

>>> Dear All,

>>>

>>> We arrive at the airport and I will be turning the simple matter 

>>> placed on the table into a circus. The simple matter was:

>>>

>>> 1. We will have AIS 2020 online and in September.

>>> 2. A Co-chair's  tenure has already ended. So an electronic election 

>>> is being proposed as part of the AIS 2020 Agenda. The question is, 

>>> is this possible?

>>> 3. It is a fact that the Co-chair is currently serving within an 

>>> extended period.

>>> 4. We now agree that the introduction of e-voting is inevitable, as 

>>> demonstrated by the pandemic.

>>>

>>> However it is clear that

>>> 1. We are going to have an online meeting , as nobody has disagreed 

>>> to that.

>>> 2. There is a strong advocacy, for a process to include e-voting in 

>>> the Region, but the timing is short. Therefore we need to commence 

>>> the plan of creating an enabling atmosphere to integrate e-voting.

>>> 3. We need to ratify the extended period for a co-chair tentatively 

>>> for 12months. Which he has spent a month or so already.

>>> 4. Ensure we have an acceptable e-voting system ready for the next 

>>> date of election.

>>> 5. Let agreed clearly on this simple issue and prepare for the 

>>> coming meeting.

>>>

>>> Simply

>>> Daniel

>>>

>>> On Jul 19, 2020 11:20 PM, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com 

>>> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>>

>>>     I have read this message and several questions come to mind as

>>>     for example:

>>>

>>>     - What basis was used to say "it was overwhelmingly" rejected ?

>>>

>>>     - Who actuallty represents the "current" community to state it

>>>     was "totally rejected" ?

>>>

>>>     - Whats basis was used to say that it would not work in the

>>>     region if that works in several other places and RIRs including,

>>>     with auditable systems ?

>>>

>>>     - Whats basis is used to say rhe community that voted for the

>>>     current Co-Chair in Kampla has the same confidence in him and

>>>     that he would win ? It seems more a personal wish than anything

>>>     based on fact or logic.

>>>

>>>     - Even in order to extend the current Co-Chair term the PDP MUST

>>>     be followed and there are no other ways written there other than

>>>     another vote. Otherwise how can this be done ?

>>>

>>>     Fernando

>>>

>>>

>>>     On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 18:08 Emem William, <dwizard65 at gmail.com

>>>     <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>>

>>>         Dear All,

>>>

>>>         I can recollect that a similar proposal was proposed as a

>>>         policy and it was overwhelmingly rejected in Angola. The

>>>         current community totally rejected the policy no one except

>>>         the authors supported the idea because we know it can't work

>>>         in this region. Using online voting now would be like

>>>         passing the policy using the backdoor. Am sure Jordie would

>>>         like this idea and hence his enthusiasm. However my candid

>>>         opinion is that we can't do this. The most appropriate way

>>>         forward is to allow the Co chair who has been doing a

>>>         fantastic job to continue for another 12 months or till the

>>>         next face to face meeting. The community that voted him in

>>>         Kampala still have confidence in him. In any case even with

>>>         an online election he would still likely win but I don't

>>>         want polices to be passed through the back door. Therefore I

>>>         think the most appropriate way for this has been suggested

>>>         as an extension for the co-chair who's seat would have been

>>>         contested.

>>>

>>>         Cheers.

>>>

>>>         Emem E. William

>>>

>>>         _______________________________________________

>>>         RPD mailing list

>>>         RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>>>

>>>

>>>     _______________________________________________

>>>     RPD mailing list

>>>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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/20200720/95dbe68d/attachment-0001.html>