Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Co-Chair Election Process
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Tue Jul 21 19:51:15 UTC 2020
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 01:16 , Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> As a premium member - permit me to use that qualification - of the Internet community world wide, i am sure that you are aware that in Afrinic, to ratify a policy being proposed, consensus is required and not voting.
>
> This means that in an online meeting scenario, valid debate on the proposal will be laid out by Various individuals and the co-chairs determines consensus. On the order hand, online voting is most likely anonymous and as the name implies, it is a “vote” and not consensus. So i think ratifying the policy and voting are totally different situations.
The co-chair election has never been anonymous in the past and I see no reason an on-line system for doing so would need to be.
As I have repeatedly proposed, the show-of-hands in the virtual meeting would be nearly identical in nature to the show of hands in the room.
I agree that ratifying a policy and voting are different situations. Further, I feel that the co-chair election (covered in the CPM and subject to the provisions therein which can be modified through the RPD process) is different from the election of board members (subject to anonymous voting and a much more formal process defined in the bylaws and controlled by Mauritian law).
Please understand that my proposal applies strictly to the election of RPD co-chairs and not to the election of board members which I believe does require a much more formal process.
> I am sure you know this. So i will imagine I understood you differently
Differently from what? I’m not sure what you mean by this statement.
Owen
>
> Taiwo
>
>> On 21 Jul 2020, at 01:32, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:28 AM, Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> The debate on running online voting or not at this time is a delicate situation and there are a few things to consider.
>>> 1. Online voting would cause doubt on the authenticity of the result, which can arise from the scare of hackers or even the total distrust of the system. This can bring disunity in the community.
>>
>> I think this is only true if you define the community as every random entity on the internet who requests the opportunity to vote regardless of their authentication or prior participation in the community at even the most basic level of subscribing to the mailing list.
>>
>>> 2. The idea of excluding some registered participants based on a certain criteria is totally wrong – as was stated severally during the last meeting in Angola- in my opinion, every community member/ participant has a right to vote.
>>
>> I think that if the criteria is no more than “was this person a functional member of the community as of X date?” that you really have a hard time saying that you have not permitted at least the vast majority of community members. Even at the meeting in Angola, you had to have registered for the meeting in order to attend and vote, right?
>>
>> While I realize that requiring past subscription to the mailing list may (temporarily) disenfranchise a very small number of people (perhaps staff can tell us how many new subscriptions since June 8). Frankly, I’d even be OK if the cutoff were July 19 at this point.
>>
>> The point is to pick a date in the past so that retroactive multi-subscription isn’t possible, thus eliminating the potential to stuff the ballot box.
>>
>>> Some proposals have been brought up about extending the tenure of the current co- chair while the community works on a permanent online procedure to be ratified possibly during the coming meeting. This is a brilliant idea as there will be enough time for the proposed online voting system to be vetted, trusted and accepted by the community. I see this as a way forward and I encourage the community to back this solution.
>>
>> How cn you ratify the procedure if you can’t figure out how to vote? In order for the community to ratify something, we must vote on it. The idea of a vote by some random procedure in order to approve a voting procedure for electing the co-chairs seems odd at best.
>>
>> Other RIRs have done just fine with the raised hands votes available in virtually every meeting platform. Please explain why you think this cannot be trusted or accepted by the community here?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Taiwo
>>>
>>>> On 20 Jul 2020, at 17:42, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 05:11 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for putting a resume. So to add up I have the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 - Section 3.3 of the PDP it says: "The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms". The Public Policy Meeting will be held online. It also says: "Anyone present at the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate in the selection process for a temporary Chair."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2 - Who can be present at this meeting ? Only those present (therefore registered) to participate, not all registered in this email list.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3 - The choosing of the e-voting system is a AfriNic staff task and there are different system already used for the very same proposes as for example the LACNIC's one. It must be a system that allow people to verify their vote was cast correctly and be fully auditable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>> 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.
>>>> The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.
>>>> There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.
>>>> The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks.
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> 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 <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/20200721/e339ef2d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list