[rpd] (no subject)

[Benjamin Investor]

Dear Jordie,
Thank you, I like your objectivity and analysis. I agree with some but you
did not specifically answer my questions. Please answer those questions I
asked in a direct manner  based on the current CPM and not your ideal CPM.
I trust you you can be honest when you want too.
 That way I would be able to trust your judgement. As long as you quote the
CPM.
  Across the world there no where where the incumbent would be asked to
step aside cos he is seeking a re-election. They still run the show I am
not  100 percent a fan of the current chairs  but we must be fair to all.
There is a special place in hell for those who see the truth and decided to
ignore it.
Do you also agree with me that even if fiiends are gathered what is the
problems with that?. Are they not stakeholders? Are they computers? Are
they not part of the community? What makes you more qualified than them?
Then are you saying there are currently no fiends on the mailing list
longer than 6 months.  Let everyone invite thier friends. I see no problem
with that as long as they contribute to the community and they follow the
CPM and they are part of the community. Why is AFRINIC and LARUS  giving
out  fellowships. Is it not to allow more participants. Now we have more
participants and we now want to divide the community between onld and new.
I have not seen an election where firiends would be disqualified or family
members disqualified as long as they are part of the community. Tell me one
if you know if any?
My point is that we must accommodate all just like no one would travel to a
meeting venue and he or she would not be allowed to vote. The vote in
Uganda was skewed towards an ugandan for obvious reasons and this would
have been the case if the election was to hold in Congo or any other
country of a local person is seeking election based on the current CPM and
election guideline. I am not saying that is right but if we think it is not
right we should change the CPM by using to the laid down process. We can't
do it through the back door under the excuse of COVID-19. If we need to
change the CPM we should do that first but it is not acceptable and evil to
change the rules in the middle of the game. More especially in a community
like ours it is very dangerous to set such precidencce. If we do that today
it would be taken advantage off tomorrow. One it is allowed it becomes the
practice. We should not because we do not like the face of the incumbent
and allow illegality to take place. That is my point. We should follow the
election guideline that was responded too my applicants and the CPM. If we
all see that the errors in the current process then Thier is a laid down
process to change things. THE RULE OF LAW MUST BE FOLLOWED.  We all should
come together and change the CPM if we need too but not by using
illegality. We can set a cut off date for people to register on the mailing
list busy such cut off date CAN NEVER be in the past. It has to be a date
in the future. As long as we don't have computers and non community members
voting.
thanks to all those who felt  that am saying the right thing
Jordie in your previous case I agree with the appeal committee not because
they are right but because the followed the correct process and arrive at
the wrong answer. The answer does not matter it's the process. It's the
process that is faulty and that is what we need to change.
Please excuse my typos, it's past my bed time

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 9:34 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


> Hi Benjamin,

>

>

>

> Even if the CPM doesn’t state it explicitly, all the RIRs are constituted

> following ICANN ICP-2.

>

>

>

> This means that when a RIR (in this case AFRINIC) is constituted, the

> membership takes over the role, by means of the staff and the board, to

> oversee the bottom-up PDP process.

>

>

>

> If we don’t agree on that, every time that the staff and/or the board has

> been supporting any process related to the PDP, including **all** the

> previous elections, is invalid. If we have accepted that before, we must do

> it also **specially now** in a pandemic situation.

>

>

>

> Note that I’m not saying at all that this is getting **any** proposal

> passed without consensus, what I’m saying is that the existing electoral

> process was **SET** by the board (is not part of the PDP), and

> consequently, the board is also able to **take special decisions** in

> this situation. Decisions which have been consulted with the community for

> a few weeks, and of course, different people had **different views** but

> the board in a critical situation, has to take a critical decision.

>

>

>

> **Whatever** we do in this situation, I’m sure, we will be able to find a

> small corner to say “it is not in the PDP, we can’t do that”. So what? The

> less harming way is to follow what we have been doing up to now: “follow a

> process defined by the board, and thus accept the board proposes changes

> for it **for this pandemic situation**”.

>

>

>

> And when I talk about proposals, let’s be clear, it means “**I don’t like

> the board to define the PDP electoral process, but if we don’t work on this

> *now*, we will not resolve this situation if it happens again in the future*

> *”.

>

>

>

> In my opinion, only one co-chair could have a decision on this, because

> obviously the other one could be also nominated again, and he needs to stay

> away, as a matter of transparency, on this.

>

>

>

> However, remember that when the appeal committee also discriminated a few

> months some authors of a policy proposal, strictly **following the PDP**,

> the co-chairs never did anything, unfortunately. So, it will be unfair to

> ask them now to take a decision on something that is managed but another

> committee. And I mention this because it probes again my point: There are

> several PDP processes which are no very well defined by the PDP, and we are

> **all** responsible of that because we had proposals to improve it, and

> we didn’t work hard enough to reach consensus.

>

>

>

> Remember that reaching consensus means finding the middle point that

> everybody can accommodate. Is not about the proposal from A, B, or C, it is

> about finding an acceptable wording for everybody.

>

>

>

> And just in case you’re thinking in that: I’m not interested in presenting

> myself as co-chair, neither nominate anyone. I’m just trying to find the

> way to “break ass less a possible” the PDP.

>

>

>

> One last thing. The 6 months in the list make a lot of sense. When you do

> a show hands in the room, you don’t need to identify folks in the room

> because you will be easily able to see if somebody is using 2 hands, or

> even 2 hands and 2 legs. Right? And you will only count one.

>

>

>

> However, if we do electronically, we need to set a limit to avoid that a

> candidate gathers 500 friends, register in the list once they know that

> he/she is going to submit his candidature. I hope that you agree that this

> will be a fraud, right?

>

>

>

> So, unless we setup a strict limit in the time to avoid that, we will need

> to ask the staff to identify the participants. Should we ask them to send

> an ID, or what?

>

>

>

>

>

> El 6/8/20 21:06, "Benjamin Investor" <investor0189 at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear Jordi,

>

> Thank you for your email. Thank you for mentioning the fact that election

> is a community issue. The board has no role in PDP process execpt to

> approve the final proposal sent to them by the chairs. what process is the

> board setting up?  We need to be very careful here.  Today you are

> proposing that the board should dictate how PDWG election should be

> conducted so that your proposal that was unanimously rejected be passed

> through the back door. Untill when the process is passed by the community

> it cannot be implemented.

>

> What I can see here is an attempt by AFRINIC to connive with Jordi and his

> friends to pass a policy unanimously rejected by the community through the

> back door in the name of COVID 19. Online elections are allowed by the

> current policy but it must be carried out as specified in the election

> guideline circulated when we opened nomination and the current policy.

>

> Jodie you said the PDP does not tell us how to conduct elections. Can you

> answer the following questions

>

> 1. Who has the power to varry the PDP process. Has the CEO and the board

> carried the co chairs along in these process.? If yes then they should come

> out and tell us that they are varring the process.

>

> 2. Does the PDP define who the members of the PDWG are

>

> 3. Does the PDP tell us who are the members of the WG who can elect the

> chair?

>

> Please read the policy manual and answer these questions honestly.

>

> I think the co chairs needs to come out and tell us the correct position

> of things.

>

>

>

> Co chairs, it is your responsibility to determine how the election is

> going to be conducted. You have the sole right to varry the process. Please

> do not allow the likes of Jordi to come and carry out a coup here. Your job

> is to guide the community as dictated by the policy manual. Co chairs you

> can't sit on the fence on this issue cos it's an attempt to ridicle the PDP

> process through the back door.

>

>

>

> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 4:50 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> wrote:

>

> Hi Benjamin,

>

>

>

> There is something that you’re probably missing.

>

>

>

> The PDP is short in the elections. The PDP doesn't state how the elections

> are done, only a very generic framework, so in that case all is up to the

> Board.

>

>

>

> The Board decided at some point to setup a process, and consequently the

> board is the one to modify the process.

>

>

>

> While I agree that this process should be managed by the community, in

> this situation we can’t do that, so we should keep the process in the way

> the Board decided and work towards a real community decided process.

>

>

>

> This is why, without having the crystal ball and consequently not knowing

> about the coming Covid-19 pandemic, in November 2019, we started to work in

> a complete proposal for this “*Chairs Elections Process*”:

>

>

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-007-d1#proposal

>

>

>

> The authors are right now working in updating this proposal, so I will

> suggest that we could invest some time in discussing it, so we can send a

> new version in a few days.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 6/8/20 17:33, "Benjamin Investor" <investor0189 at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear CEO,

>

> Thank you for the email and the wonderful job you have been doing since

> appointed. However regarding your email, I totally disagree with you based

> on the following

>

> 1. The guiding book of PDWG is the CPM and not the CEO's decision.

>

> 2. The CPM is clear on who is a member of the PDWG. The CPM states clearly

> that Any person who has joined the making list is a member of if the

> working group.

>

> 3. The CPM is also clear the chair is elected by members of the working

> group.

>

> 4. There is no where in the CPM where there is a 6 months rule on voting

> therefore the rule cannot be created now. You cannot change the goalpost at

> the middle of the game. The election guideline issues at the time of

> nomination process is very clear as to how the election would take place.

> This is by shoe of hand. Show of hand can also be done online

>

> 5. How can the AFRNIC determine that the increase in mailing list is

> because of elections. We all know that as a result of COVID 19 everyone is

> now moving online are you saying we would not deny this people the option

> to vote? We definitely cannot do that. For example I have been on the

> mailing list in the past and I opted out because of all the confusing and

> abuse always happening and I joined back again last week are you now going

> to deny me  and others like me the opportunity to vote? This seams like an

> attempt by AFRINIC to rig the election in favour of the some groups.

>

> 6. You made reference to other RIR can you please mention one RIR that has

> the 6 months rule in place before Thier online election. ?

>

> 7. I think AFRINIC needs to be careful. AFRINIC staff is expected to be

> neutral in all cases and if Afrinic staff are now judging new members as to

> Thier motive of joining the WG this is not ideal.

>

> Thank you

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

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

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

>

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or

> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of

> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized

> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this

> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or

> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including

> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal

> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this

> communication and delete it.

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

>

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or

> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of

> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized

> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this

> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or

> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including

> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal

> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this

> communication and delete it.

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200806/657f94db/attachment-0001.html>