[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello Noah and all

I am not sure if you are not used with it, but normally when a proposal 
is is presented it is normal that until there are points to be adjusted 
that people get opposed or support them. This is a clear way to show 
each individual's position about aspects of that proposal and helps the 
Co-Chairs to evaluate if any consensus has been reached or not. Along 
with that support or opposition people must also explain their reasons 
other than just "I don't like it".
It's a normal practice and it's in no way meant to offend if it sounded 
like that. Depending on the complexity and length of the proposal people 
may support some point and oppose to other and it is perfectly fine that 
each one makes it very clear to all other and to the chair their point 
of view this way.
In my view for particularly this proposal I have plenty of reasons to 
oppose to this multiple points.

Regarding the proposal itself consensus is made by all of us and it is 
up to the co-chairs evaluate it based on the support/opposition and 
mainly in the arguments and justifications that have been put to each 
important point of the proposal. That's how it works everywhere I know 
and how is possible to reach 'rough consensus'.

Reaching consensus on a proposal is a very different thing from 
selecting people for a role. Both things don't work the same way as a 
proposal that have technical points that can be supported by technical 
documentation and practical scenarios. People not necessarily, that's 
why when they are chosen in a election there is not much question left, 
different from a scenario when there is a high level of subjectivity is 
involved.
There should not be "random community voting" for selecting someone, but 
eligible people that can vote on such process should be based on minimal 
criteria. Normally people who can vote are those who are truly part of 
the process, and not any random person never participates or helps to 
build that environment and just subscribe at the last minute in order to 
vote. If this can be secured there are no damage to the process.

For the process for a appointing a interim Co-chair it is such a special 
scenario and may impact other important matters that justifies to 
involved the entire Board in that process. This brings more legitimacy 
because it doesn't fall in the hands of a single person but in multiple 
hands of different people with different points of view. If the board is 
able to meet once a month or as soon as possible, even remotely when 
necessary to take such decision that should not be a big issue. Board 
members are elected also to take this type of important decisions as well.
Let's remember that the role of the Co-Chair is very important to the 
RIR ecosystem and depending on the case can impact significantly 
important aspects of Internet and resource distribution to the region, 
so another reason having the entire Board to take such important 
decision in a exceptional case like this.

Regards
Fernando

On 03/08/2020 16:44, Noah wrote:

> Dear Fernando and WG

>

> (There has been only one comment so far and so we will address the 

> points made by Fernando in this periodic update from authors).

>

> Please can we present arguments without proclaiming “I oppose” or  “I 

> support”!.

>

> The working group debates and then tries to converge towards adoption 

> of policy by consensus. Isn’t it?

>

> You seem to insinuate and repeat the well spread idea that the working 

> group consensus is made by the co-chairs. Co-chairs just oversee the 

> process by which the working group derives its consensus.

>

> The consensus approach used here makes it clear that voting is not a 

> preferred option and defines how outcomes of polls conducted either by 

> show of hands or humming during the consensus process are treated.

>

> The working group makes decisions on policy proposals on how to manage 

> and distribute Internet number resources and yet can’t appoint it's 

> co-chairs with the same method?

>

> Co-chairs selection which is based on merit with broad acceptance of 

> the working group can be done via consensus and not rely on random 

> “community” voting.

>

> After all that was said above, the proposed co-chair appointment 

> procedure  favors consensus, but allows “voting”.

>

> If for some reasons, consensus can’t  be reached, then a 

> consensus-oriented secret ballot voting is organized. Voters are 

> called to indicate the preferential order of “can live with” each 

> candidate.

>

> As for the “Board Chair” vs “full board” appointing an interim 

> co-chair, do we really need to involve the entire board in the 

> appointment of an interim co-chair? Doesn't the Chair embody the board 

> enough to make this appointment, especially at its discretion when no 

> method is imposed on him?

>

> Do we have to engage the full board which is also involved in handling 

> the co-chairs recalls in this appointment?

>

> cheers,

> *./noah*

>

> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:13 AM Fernando Frediani 

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

>

>     I oppose the proposal for one main reason: it says "The working

>     group makes decisions by consensus and shall also appoint

>     co-chairs by consensus."

>     This is too utopic really and make zero sense. One thing is to

>     have a proposal advanced by rough consensus at the judgment of the

>     Co-Chairs, another is to choose someone for a position "by

>     consensus". Electing (choosing in some languages) is selecting.

>     How are we supposed to have someone chosen "by consensus" if there

>     are multiple candidates ? It make zero sense. Election should be

>     the only option for choosing people.

>     Who will be responsible to determine there was consensus on

>     someone's name if a Co-Chair is running for re-election ? The

>     remaining Co-Chair which is a single person ? It doesn't make any

>     sense at all.

>

>     What's wrong with elections ? It works fine everywhere if well

>     conducted and with proper systems that leaves no margin for doubts.

>     Why resistance in holding elections ? That's normal part of many

>     business and cases.

>

>     An election with simple bounds as 1) cut off date to be registered

>     in the list 2) a system that is auditable and 3) a mechanism that

>     can fill temporary vacant seat like the AfriNic Board appointing

>     someone is not rocket science and leaves almost no point for

>     disputing.

>

>     People are not policy proposals and must not be chosen by

>     consensus, only by election.

>

>     Finally why giving the task to the Chair of Afrinic Board of

>     Directors to choose someone and not to the entire Board as it is

>     in other places ? This makes the act much more robust than a

>     selection done by a single person.

>

>     Fernando

>

>     On 21/07/2020 17:12, Noah wrote:

>>     *Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures*

>>

>>     Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal

>>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>     The current PDP uses a working group for policy development

>>     activities. It does not define specific procedures and

>>     operational rules for the working group. This has over the time

>>     led to interpretation issues in regards to how the working group

>>     is administered and how discussions are moderated.

>>

>>     Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem

>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>     The proposal addresses the problems by defining clear and

>>     explicit Working Group guidelines and procedures.

>>

>>     Policies  the proposal amends/obsoletes

>>     ------------------------------------------------------

>>

>>     The proposal amends the Policy Development Process, section 3.0

>>     of the AFRINIC CPM.

>>

>>     Proposal

>>     -------------

>>

>>     1.0 Introduction

>>

>>     The Policy Development working group (PDWG) provides an open

>>     public forum to discuss Internet number resources policies and

>>     related topics of interest to AFRINIC and the Internet community

>>     in the AFRINIC service region.

>>

>>     PDWG sessions are held at AFRINIC Public policy meetings. Between

>>     meetings, discussions continue through the Resource Policy

>>     discussions mailing list. The PDWG is open to all interested

>>     individuals.

>>

>>     This document serves as guidelines on how the working group shall

>>     operate. It defines clear roles and responsibilities for the PDWG

>>     co-chairs and clear procedures for the working group’s

>>     administration.

>>

>>     2.0 Co-chairs

>>

>>     Two PDWG co-chairs primarily administer the Policy Development

>>     working group. The PDWG co-chairs perform a vital role in

>>     managing the working group. The effectiveness of the PDWG is

>>     dependent on the active participation of the co-chairs. PDWG

>>     co-chairs undertake their role on a volunteer basis.

>>

>>     The co-chairs coordinate the activities of the policy

>>     development’s working group and are expected to attend all

>>     AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings. They must remain subscribed to

>>     the AFRINIC Policy Discussion mailing list for the duration of

>>     their term and must also be subscribed to the AFRINIC

>>     member-discuss mailing list during their term.

>>

>>     For each policy proposal, one co-chair must be assigned as the

>>     primary contact; both co-chairs however shall actively

>>     participate in the consensus building. The leading co-chair for

>>     the proposal as described above shall guide the policy proposal

>>     through the different phases of the PDP.

>>

>>     2.1 Responsibilities of PDWG co-chairs

>>

>>     The co-chairs’ responsibility encompasses at least the following:

>>

>>     ·      Ensure working group process and content management

>>

>>     The co-chairs have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the

>>     working group achieves forward progress .The co-chairs are also

>>     responsible to ensure that the working group operates in an open

>>     and fair manner.

>>

>>     ·      Moderate the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list

>>

>>     The co-chairs should attempt to ensure that the discussions on

>>     the list are relevant and that they converge to consensus

>>     agreements.  The co-chairs should make sure that discussions on

>>     the list are summarized and that the outcome is well documented

>>     to avoid repetition and other abuses.

>>

>>     ·      Organize, prepare and chair the face-to-face and on-line

>>     formal working group meetings

>>

>>     The responsibilities of the co-chairs are listed below:

>>

>>     2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting

>>

>>     -  Assist authors with formatting proposal

>>

>>     -  Introduce policy proposals to the policy discussion mailing list

>>

>>     -  Discourage any behavior that jeopardizes open participation to

>>     policy discussions, especially for newcomers.

>>

>>     -   Monitor and moderate discussions held on AFRINIC policy

>>     discussion mailing list

>>

>>     -  Announce the call for presentation of policy proposals for

>>     Public Policy Meetings on the policy discussion mailing list

>>

>>     -  Read presentation's slides to familiarise themselves with the

>>     details and ensure they match proposals ‘text. In case of any

>>     difference, submission of an updated version of the proposal on

>>     the mailing list to notify the working group is required, even if

>>     these changes will not be considered.

>>

>>     -  Create agenda presentation slides for the meeting with AFRINIC

>>     staff.

>>

>>     -  Guide the consensus building process; announce the current

>>     status of a policy proposal.

>>

>>     -  Read AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting minutes and makes

>>     corrections as necessary

>>

>>     -  Present the policy discussion working group report to the

>>     AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.

>>

>>     2.1.2 During a Public Policy Meeting

>>

>>     -  Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the discussions.

>>

>>     -  Determine whether proposals gained enough support to move to

>>     the next phase.

>>

>>     -  Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the AFRINIC Public

>>     Policy Meeting

>>

>>     -  Present the policy discussion working group report to the

>>     AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.

>>

>>     2.1.3 After a Public Policy Meeting

>>

>>     - Send a report of the Public Policy Meeting to the community and

>>     policy discussion mailing lists including policy proposal

>>     discussion outcomes and open action items.

>>

>>     -  Monitor and moderate discussions during the last-call phase

>>     period.

>>

>>     -   Summarise discussions, and following the end of the

>>     last-call, post the decision regarding whether the proposal has

>>     reached consensus or not.

>>

>>     -  Submit policy proposal ratification report to the AFRINIC

>>     board of directors.

>>

>>     2.2. Appointment of PDWG co-chairs

>>

>>     The working group appoints two co-chairs for a two-years term.

>>     Co-chairs’ appointments occur in alternate years for each seat

>>     (seat1 and seat2).

>>

>>     The working group makes decisions by consensus and shall also

>>     appoint co-chairs by consensus. Elections should be used as a

>>     last resort solution.

>>

>>     The appointment for each seat follows the following process:

>>

>>     At least 60 days before the Public Policy Meeting, AFRINIC staff

>>     sends a call for nominations to the policy development mailing

>>     list. The call will contain:

>>

>>     - Details of the co-chair position to be filled (seat1 or seat2)

>>

>>     - Details of the duties of the position.

>>

>>     - The closing date for nominations; 30 days from the date of the

>>     call.

>>

>>     Any natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC service

>>     region is allowed to volunteer.

>>

>>     Volunteers make themselves known by introducing themselves (short

>>     biography and motivation) as a candidate on the working group

>>     mailing list.

>>

>>     Candidates for the co-chair’s position should be known as active

>>     participants on the working group mailing list with good

>>     experience with the AFRINIC policy development process, and must

>>     have attended at least two (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings of

>>     which one must be in person, during the last 3 years.

>>

>>     If at least one nomination is received by closing date, the

>>     appointment process starts. The appointment must be held at the

>>     upcoming Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the agenda.

>>     Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will

>>     determine by consensus among the candidates who shall take the

>>     available position. The remaining chair will determine whether

>>     consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself

>>     without a co-chair, the chair of the AFRINIC Board of Directors

>>     will lead the consensus process.

>>

>>     If only one candidate is being evaluated, the lack of consensus

>>     must declare the seat vacant. The chair of AFRINIC board of

>>     directors shall appoint interim co-chair. The Interim co-chair

>>     will act up to the appointment of the new co-chair.

>>

>>     If no consensus can be reached and more than one candidate is

>>     being evaluated, then a secret ballot to elect the new co-chair

>>     will be held. Everyone physically present at the session can

>>     participate in the secret ballot. Votes and counting shall be

>>     conducted using a ranked preferential voting method otherwise

>>     known as IRV. The winner of the secret ballot will become the new

>>     co-chair.

>>

>>     In the unlikely event that after all the rounds of counting of

>>     the vote, there is a tie between the two (2) most ranked

>>     candidates, they shall be asked to select one among them to serve

>>     the term by consensus. The seat shall be declared vacant in case

>>     of failure of agreement between the last two.

>>

>>     If the secret ballot cannot be held, the seat is declared vacant.

>>     The chair of AFRINIC board of directors shall appoint interim

>>     co-chairs(s). The Interim co-chair(s) will act up to the

>>     appointment of the new co-chair(s).

>>

>>     Exit of co-chair includes a handover period and an expectation

>>     that the sitting chair follows proposals, which have already

>>     reached consensus, to the completion of their PDP cycle.

>>

>>     2.3. Recalling a co-chair

>>

>>     If the co-chair does not attend two consecutive AFRINIC Public

>>     Policy Meetings without reasons or has been publicly reported by

>>     the other co-chair as no longer attending to the working group’s

>>     affairs without reasons, the co-chair will be removed from its role.

>>

>>     Anyone may request the recall of a working group co-chair at any

>>     time, upon a written request with justification to the AFRINIC

>>     Board of Directors. The request must be supported by at least ten

>>     (10) other persons.

>>

>>     The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee,

>>     excluding the persons requesting the recall and the co-chair. The

>>     recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the

>>     request for the recall and determine the outcome in not more than

>>     4 weeks after the recall is recorded. The recall committee report

>>     shall be published on the working group mailing list.

>>

>>     The recall committee decision shall be final and binding.

>>

>>     Whenever a co-chair is removed from its role and recalled, the

>>     remaining co-chair will assume the chairing role of the working

>>     group until the appointment of a new co-chair(s).

>>

>>     2.4. Resignation of co-chair

>>

>>     If a  co-chair resigns, the remaining co-chair will assume the

>>     chairing role of the working group until the appointment of a new

>>     co-chair(s).

>>

>>     If both co-chairs resign, the chair of the AFRINIC board of

>>     directors shall as a matter of urgency lead the appointment by

>>     the working group of an interim co-chair(s) via the mailing list

>>     or at the Public Policy meeting. If no consensus can be reached,

>>     the chair of the Board of directors shall appoint interim

>>     Co-chairs(s) for the working group.

>>

>>      The Interim chair will act up to the appointment of the new

>>     co-chair(s).

>>

>>     3.0 Operations working group (PDWG)

>>

>>     3.1 Moderation of working group discussions and sessions

>>

>>     The challenge of managing the policy development working group

>>     sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration

>>     of the issues against the need to make forward progress. The

>>     working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for

>>     striking this balance. The working group co-chairs have the

>>     responsibility for overseeing the process.

>>

>>     To facilitate making forward progress, the working group

>>     co-chairs may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from an

>>     individual, based upon the following criteria:

>>

>>     Old:

>>     The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and

>>     is redundant with information previously available;

>>

>>     Minor:

>>     The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been

>>     resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing

>>     decision;

>>

>>     Timing:

>>     The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet

>>     opened for discussion;

>>

>>     Scope:

>>     The input is outside the scope of the  discussions or of the

>>     working group

>>

>>     3.2 Individual behaviors

>>

>>     Occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior on a

>>     mailing list that, in the opinion of the working group co-chairs,

>>     is disruptive to the working group’s progress or goes against

>>     applicable Codes of Conduct.

>>

>>     Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must be

>>     stopped immediately, the co-chairs should attempt to discourage

>>     the disruptive behavior by communicating directly with the

>>     offending individual. If the behavior persists, the co-chairs

>>     should send at least one public warning on the mailing list. The

>>     warning should clearly expose what is being cautioned on the

>>     individual and the basis of co-chairs judgment.

>>

>>     As last resort, and typically after one or more explicit

>>     warnings, and if the behavior persists, the working group

>>     co-chairs may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the

>>     disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days. The

>>     application of this restriction must be gradual. If the

>>     individual resumes with the same behavior or worse, the

>>     restriction period may increase.

>>

>>     Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual must

>>     not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list.

>>

>>     Other Mailing list control solutions may be considered. The

>>     working group must have adopted these solutions.

>>

>>     Like all other working group’s co-chairs' decisions, any

>>     suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal.

>>

>>     3.3. Public Policy Meeting

>>

>>     A Public Policy Meeting (PPM) is a meeting open to the community

>>     wherein proposals for policies are discussed within the framework

>>     of the Policy Development Process (PDP). The AFRINIC board of

>>     Directors calls PPMs in accordance with section 11.2 of the Bylaws.

>>

>>     If one co-chair can’t participate in a Public Policy Meeting, the

>>     second co-chair shall chair the meeting.

>>

>>     If both co-chairs can’t participate in a meeting, the working

>>     group shall appoint one (1) person temporarily to lead the

>>     session. If the working group cannot appoint a temporary chair,

>>     the chair of AFRINIC board of directors shall appoint a temporary

>>     chair. If the board chair fails to appoint a temporary chair, the

>>     meeting shall be adjourned.

>>

>>     The temporary chair appointed above shall lead the discussions

>>     according to the agenda, but can’t determine consensus on policy

>>     proposals. He will provide meeting minutes to the mailing list

>>     and allow the co-chairs to take over.

>>

>>     While open discussion and contribution is essential to working

>>     Group working group success, co-chairs are responsible for

>>     ensuring forward progress. When acceptable to the working group,

>>     co-chairs may call for restricted participation (but not

>>     restricted attendance!) at Public Policy meetings for the purpose

>>     of achieving progress. The working group co-chairs then have the

>>     responsibility to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who

>>     is unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or

>>     who, in the opinion of the co-chairs, is disrupting the working

>>     group process.

>>

>>     3.4 Consensus

>>

>>     The working group makes decisions by consensus as defined in the PDP

>>

>>     4.0 Appeals

>>

>>     4.1 Suspension of posting privileges

>>

>>     Anyone whose privileges of posting to the mailing list have been

>>     suspended by the working group co-chairs may file an appeal

>>     against the decision to the chair of the AFRINIC board of

>>     directors. The chair will evaluate the circumstances, hear the

>>     co-chairs and complainer and decide. The chair’s decision shall

>>     be final and binding.

>>

>>     4.2 Co-chairs appointment

>>

>>     A person who disagrees with the actions taken by a co-chair

>>     regarding the appointment process shall follow the conflict

>>     resolution process as defined in the PDP.

>>

>>     Actions taken by the chair of AFRINIC board of directors

>>     regarding the appointment process are final and binding

>>

>>     5.0 Acknowledgements

>>

>>     The author would like to acknowledge that some text and

>>     procedures in this document have been adapted from RFC2418 and

>>     from the working group’s practices of other RIRs.

>>

>>     Authors

>>     Noah Maina

>>     noah at neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>

>>

>>     Alain P. Aina

>>     aalain at trstech.net <mailto:aalain at trstech.net>

>>     ========

>>     *

>>     *

>>     Cheers,*

>>     *

>>     *./noah*

>>

>>     _______________________________________________

>>     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/20200805/8e328dd0/attachment-0001.html>