Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 78
Paclab
ezekielj20 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 14:19:37 UTC 2020
I forsaw this happening, that's why I was insisting on the cancellation on
online meeting till the pandemic is over
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:59 AM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> 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
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 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: Co-Chair Election Process (Fernando Frediani)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:58:31 -0300
> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> To: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Co-Chair Election Process
> Message-ID: <2606ca05-56e7-38d3-7168-819f7db79b09 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> On 21/07/2020 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Yes, but that proposal could be to vary the chair election process
> > just as much as to vary anything else in the document.
>
> Yes, as long it is conducted under a policy proposal discussion
> following 3.6 no problem at all.
>
> Now the main problem I guess is to reach consensus on something as many
> people seem too afraid of anything. So why I suggested something
> strictly simple that resolves the current scenario, even temporarily
> until we can have a proper proposal discussed later that resolves it
> long term.
>
> However some people keep suggesting to extend the Co-Chair term without
> willing to go through a simple show of hands in a remote event as the
> PDP says. So how we suppose to do this? Regardless the type of job the
> person is doing there is not other way to extend his term other than the
> process outlined in the PDP.
>
> I don't see any other ways out of it.
>
> Fernando
>
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >> Fernando
> >>
> >> On 21/07/2020 00:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Fernando Frediani
> >>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Owen. Sorry I don't really read the 3.6 the same way as you. 3.6
> >>>> in my view wasn't thought for situation like this. It's being glued
> >>>> for the occasion that's not the case. 3.6 is about how the
> >>>> proposals are conducted, reviewed and passed within this forum in a
> >>>> exceptional situation (pretty much where we are). All points
> >>>> mentioned there have to do with proposals. We are not discussing or
> >>>> advancing a proposal right now.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> That?s your special interpretation. It?s not what a plain english
> >>> reading of the language says.
> >>>
> >>> 1.The PDP is in the document containing 3.6. The PDP is a process.
> >>> 2.The co-chair election process is in the document containing 3.6.
> >>> The co-chair election process is a process.
> >>> 3.3.6 says ?The process outlined in this document??.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What CAN actually be done within 3.6 is someone to properly present
> >>>> a proposal to amend the PDP and fix the issues we are discussing
> >>>> here and then have this proposal treated under 3.6 (with no less
> >>>> than 4 weeks including the Last Call - which coincides with your
> >>>> point number 3 below).
> >>>>
> >>> I suppose that could also work, though it?s rather indirect and adds
> >>> (unnecessary IMHO) complexity.
> >>>>
> >>>> In my opinion proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is ready for it,
> >>>> but I guess that may not reach consensus. So a much shorter
> >>>> proposal with just the essential we need to resolve this situation
> >>>> is the way to go under 3.6. Would that match with what you are
> >>>> trying to put ?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is a fatally flawed proposal and I
> >>> would not support it as currently written.
> >>>
> >>> I think a much more direct proposal to clarify an expanded scope of
> >>> 3.6 (closer to my interpretation instead of your rather narrow
> >>> interpretation) would be the most likely to gain consensus, frankly.
> >>> I think such is unnecessary, but _IF_ you insist on the (oddly)
> >>> narrow interpretation of 3.6 you have put forth, then?
> >>>
> >>> Owen
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fernando
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20/07/2020 21:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Fernando Frediani
> >>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is not my goal to make things easier for you or even
> >>>>> necessarily easier in general.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is my goal to achieve the best possible outcome through a
> >>>>> mechanism that comes as close to applying the PDP rules as possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It applies to all of the CPM ("The process outlined in this
> >>>>> document may vary??).
> >>>>> 1. If not the co-chairs, then who?
> >>>>> 2. I think the explanation is well understood? ?Because in person
> >>>>> meeting during the COVID crisis is impossible.?
> >>>>> 3. I?m not so sure about this. Whatever election process we decide
> >>>>> on should be put to a final community comment
> >>>>> period of some form. I see no reason that should be less than 4
> weeks.
> >>>>> 4. So you?re saying that the determination of how to (or whether
> >>>>> to) conduct co-chair elections should be made
> >>>>> by some other method than community consensus and should not be
> >>>>> considered policy at least for this meeting?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How does that work?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This would most certainly be a variation of the PDP to meet the
> >>>>> emergency as it exists which would be permitted under 3.6, so, yes,
> >>>>> my argument here depends on my argument above which you have
> >>>>> claimed you are not buying. However, hopefully with my expansions on
> >>>>> the topic above, I can perhaps convince you to change your mind
> >>>>> and recognize that without something like that, we literally box
> >>>>> ourselves into a situation with no way forward until such time as
> >>>>> we can arrange an in-person meeting. Personally, I think that?s
> >>>>> far from the best outcome.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The basis for it is 3.6. Read the CPM carefully read 3.6. It?s not
> >>>>> rocket science. The CPM describes all of the policies, the PDP,
> >>>>> and the co-chair election process within the one document. Section
> >>>>> 3.6 provides for variance of the process[sic] should be processes
> >>>>> within
> >>>>> the document. That includes the co-chair election process unless
> >>>>> you can show me why it does not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Owen
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> RPD mailing list
> >>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/20200721/5d88410b/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 78
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/4ee96c3c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list