[rpd] (no subject)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Benjamin,

 

No worries with the typos … just remember that my name is Jordi, not Jordie :-)

 

Let me try to answer your questions, but is not a simple yes or not.

 
The CPM can be modified only by the PDP, which is in the hands of the community. However, the elections process is setup by the board. *WE HAVE accepted that* since day one. The current CPM is silent on that. This is the issue. So now, we only can accept the elections process: if we don’t accept the elections process as defined by the board in a rational manner we should CANCEL all the previous elections as well, and that means all the previous co-chairs ware fraudulently elected, and consequently all their consensus/no-consensus decisions ARE INVALID. You see the problem?
The PDP defines who are the PDWG members.
The PDP DOESN’T define who can participate in the elections for co-chairs. It says that it happens during the PPM. It says that is the community, but community is not defined. Consequently, community can be interpreted (as the board did) as who has been in the PDWG at a given deadline. This is perfectly valid as a way to ensure that there is no registration of 500 emails from the same person to be able to hijack the elections in order to vote 499 extra times for the desired candidate.
 

This is the reason, the lack of clarity and definitions, and my observations of the failures (and possible frauds) of the elections done on-site in the previous meetings, and in contrast how well the elections work in other RIRs and foras, which suggested me to start a policy proposal first in LACNIC, then here.

 

Note that my interest has never been to benefit any candidate. My interest is to improve what I believe is broken, and I hope you agree with my responses to your questions that it is clearly broken and shall be improved.

 

Again: I don’t agree that the board has the decision on ANY community process. The board is for membership aspects. The community is sovereign in everything related to the PDP. However, by means of ICANN ICP-2 the board has an oversight function, because the community need a “logistics” support and a way to handle issues in the worst case. The community will “not exist” (no PDP, no co-chairs, no policies) if we don’t have an oversight (which also means collecting fees from members or an alternative way to cover the expenses).

 

That means that the board should be able to resolve issues in special situations, like lack of PDP definition (and in fact we supported that for many years by the acceptance of the elections and appeals committees), and that means that now we shall keep trusting the board *UNTIL* we all work hard to find consensus in order to fix our own processes.

 

Complaining and not doing anything is not the way. This is the only reason I’m involved in the policy making process in all the RIRs and in standardization in IETF. If I think something is wrong or needs to be improved, I will not just be barking, but acting to resolve it (I don’t know if I can translate the Spanish expression to “barking dog never bite”).

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 6/8/20 23:33, "Benjamin Investor" <investor0189 at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200807/8b6fd407/attachment-0001.html>