[rpd] Policy Development Process and Elections

[Benjamin Investor]

Dear CEO/ AFRINIC Board and Jordi,
Thank you for your mail. I disagree with your mail, and I would like you to
take some time to study the history of the RIRs and why we have them. The
entire work that is carried out by AFRINIC and others today was previously
done by ONE man and I can tell you that the work all the RIRs are doing in
terms of Internet number registration and record-keeping can be carried out
by a few individuals. However, we agreed that RIRs should be set up because
the internet should be managed as a community resource where all
stakeholders would be able to contribute and as mentioned by Jordi in a
bottom-up process. It can never be a top-down process. I have also just
read the sections that Jordi mentioned in the ICANN bylaw and I totally
agree with him in some aspect and I disagree with him on the fact that the
board has a role to play when it comes to the process of electing the PDP
chair or in the PDP process itself apart from the final ratification. All
ICANN communities appoint their chair by themself in a process agreed by
the community and not dictated by ICANN.

Yes, I can see the reasons for the 6 months rule that the board is trying
to impose on us but two wrongs can never make a right. All process within
the PDP must be open, transparent and fair.
Please let me ask you what process has been used in previous elections? As
AFRINIC ever received a formal petition against any PDP election apart from
a few rumbling on the mailing list? As you can see clearly that month
before a public meeting we always witness an increase in number? Yes, the
number doubled this year, but this year again something happened that has
never happened before which is COVID and everyone was at home and Do you
know that the number of internet users all over the world grew cos we now
all work from home?. I am not trying to say this is the case here but
clearly, you cant also say this is not the case. We are only making a guess
here and an assumption.  What you have done here lack fairness and would
create more division within the community and might even lead to accusation
of wrongdoing against the CEO and the board who knows we might also have
litigation by those we are trying to disenfranchise. Let me start by saying
why did you ask the community about the chair election process? You got the
community input and it went back to the board. Was there a consensus by the
community? No there was no clear consensus but you and the board decided to
go with a suggestion only supported by a few? is that fair? Is that not
suspicious that some people are working behind the scene?  The fact that
what was suggested by a few was adopted is a clear indication of wrongdoing
here.

 I believe the community needs to find a permanent solution if we have a
problem, but my humble question to you and the board is that the people
that have joined the mailing list in the last six month are they not
stakeholders in this community? Even if they have joined to vote as you and
the board are suggesting are they still not stakeholders. And according to
the rpm "anyone" can contribute and at any time. What makes the person who
joined 6 years ago more and has never said a word more qualified than the
person who joined 6 days ago? Yes, I think there is a problem there but it
is not for you or the board to solve this problem as rightly mentioned by
Jordi.  What problem are you trying to solve with the 6 months and other
rules set? During the next election, next year are we going to have an 18
months rule?. who says that we would be able to have a face to face meeting
next year even if we have a face to face meeting how do we prevent
hairdressers from coming in to vote? Or are we going to be changing the
process all the time? is that a fair way of dealing with the issue.  Let us
be realistic here. is your intention genuine or are we acting a script?
Yes, Jordi has a policy proposal but what assurance do we have that the
proposal would pass and be implemented before next year.  As far as I am
concerned, we need to follow the rules in whatever we do fI not we have
giving room for anarchy. The rule you are trying here is divisive and as
seen it was rejected by a sizable number of people even thou it might be
questionable but we say responses  If we agree to use this rule this time
what stops the board from interfering in future elections. We are not
looking at the future implication we are only trying to solve a short term
problem and leaving behind a long term problem. The problem at hand must be
solved by the community using the laid down process and not imposed by the
CEO or the board.

The community is matured enough to deal with this issue and there is what
we call expedited PDP process that is allowed in case we have this type of
difficulty.  The co-chair is just a guide for the PDP process and the
process is dictated by the community so why making a fuss out of nothing?
NOW  my humble suggestion to you and the Board
1. We have a problem at hand but we don't have a solution that is fair and
transparent at the moment.
2. We need to have a process in place that would solve our problems not
complicate them
3. The problem cannot be solved before we have an election fo fill one of
the vacancies
4. We have those that have signified interest to become the chair,
5. One of them would become the chair even if we have an election
6. As things stand now, the community cannot agree on who are the members
that should vote for the chair. Therefore if we have 1 candidate then no
need for an election but if we have more than 1 candidate.  Then ONLY THE
CANDIDATES who have signified their intention to be chair should vote among
themself and whoever has the highest number of the vote among the
candidates is elected by acclamation by the community.  They can have two
types of election
A) let each of them rank their choices among themself if no one has the
highest number of the first-choice vote then we add the second choice vote
then the third choice if needed. That way even if they all vote for
themself as 1st choice candidate there would still be a winner at the end
of the day depending on ranking done by all the candidate. Therefore we
still have the most prefered among them being selected.
B) Have an elimination based election the candidate with the lowest number
is  eliminated, and another round is conducted by all of them until there
is a clear winner alternatively if we have two candidates have a tie then
we toss a coin to chose one

    In these cases, we have solved the entire problem because what has
happened is that we have a consensus candidate. This would not create any
rancour between old and new members and the community would now have the
time to put in place the necessary policy before the next election.  Let
the candidates among themself convince the other candidate to either
stepdown or vote for them. This to me is the best way to move forward so
that we do not create more problem within the community. At the moment no
one knows the slate for the election but I have a strong suspicion about
the motive behind the 6 months rule and the July registration might just be
a smokescreen.

I think this is the best way forward and because as you know and this can
be confirmed by Jordi, we have a case of an anonymous person in Uganda
(before you became the CEO) posting on the mailing list and this person was
traced by Jordi to be a community member using an anonymous account such
person has two accounts older than 6 months and automatically you are
handing such person two votes. Is that not the case Jordi?
We also have others like that who for one reason or the other registered
two emails on the mailing list. Are we now going to give them an advantage?
then how do we verify the vote. The vote would be verified by the same
board and CEO who made the rules. How do we know that they are not
enforcing the 6 moths rule for some and not for some? How do we verify
that? Are you going to publish the votes so that we all can verify those
who voted if they are actual people?. This seals like an attempt to impose
someone on the community.  The PDP election has always been like an open
ballot like a show of hand and I believe that is why the election has never
been disputed.
On the other hand, as your statistics have shown by your statistics, there
is no month since January 2019 where you don't have at least one person
joining. Yes in July 2020 the number was ridiculous but we can't say all of
them joined just to vote.
 Finally, I would like to formally put forward my proposal to the community
as I think this is the best way forward such that we don't allow the board
or CEO to interfere in what should be a community driving process. This
way, we would also prevent any litigation at the end of the election
process because the community would only be endorsing the winner based on
the choice of candidates only.
  I do not want the CEO or the board to be the one to endorse my humble
suggestion is that the community should take my suggestion as formal policy
and the chairs ask for a consensus around it and judge the consensus as we
previously do. This way, we pass it as an expedited policy with a varied
process with the clause that it would only be applicable this year because
of the problem at hand. I, therefore, ask the chairs to seek consensus
around this proposal.

Thank you.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 1:43 PM AFRINIC Communication <comms at afrinic.net>
wrote:


> [Version en français ci-dessous]

>

> Dear colleagues,

>

> Further to its communique issued on 5 August 2020, AFRINIC wishes to

> inform its community that following its announcement regarding the holding

> of the Policy Development Working Group (“PDWG”) Co-Chair and NRO ASO-AC

> elections for the year 2020, it has considered all responses obtained in

> respect thereof.

>

> Consequently, AFRINIC considers it appropriate to clarify, for the

> benefits of its community, the following:

>

> (a)   That the Public Policy Meeting (“PPM”) is convened by the AFRINIC

> Board of Directors pursuant to the provisions of articles 11.2 and 11.3 of

> the Bylaws;

>

> (b)  That in regard to the election of the PDWG Co-Chair and

> notwithstanding the fact same is held during the PPM, section 3.1 of the

> Consolidated Policy Manual (“CPM”) clearly and in no uncertain terms

> provides as follows: - “Internet number resource policies are distinctly

> separate from AFRINIC general business practices and procedures. General

> business practices and procedures are not within the purview of the Policy

> Development Process.

>

> (c)   That in light of para (b) above, the election process applicable to

> the PDWG Co-Chair election does not form an integral part of the CPM and is

> thus a matter for the Board of Directors to determine;

>

> (d)  That, consistent with the above and having considered the

> exceptional context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board of Directors

> recently resolved, inter-alia, that the forthcoming PPM will be held

> virtually and has even caused an Election Process 2020 to be

> published applicable to all elections to be held during the year 2020;

>

> (e)   That in so far as the role of the PDWG is concerned, the core

> responsibility of the latter is to discuss policy proposals via the

> Internet (mailing list) or in person (during face-to-face PPM). Hence,

> since time restrictions are prevalent for the policy discussions during the

> PPM, rough consensus of policy proposals is determined during the PPM by

> considering both online and on-site contributions. Final consensus is

> decided upon after consideration of the discussions in the Last Call period;

>

> (f)   That the right attributed to its community to contribute to policy

> discussions by either subscribing to the rpd mailing list or

> participating in the discussions in the upcoming PPM by registering for and

> attending the online meeting is sacrosanct and AFRINIC hereby renews its

> commitment that it will continue to give full effect to the principles of

> Policy Development as stipulated in section 3.2 of the CPM;

>

> (g)   That, for the purposes of para (e) above, subscription to the

> AFRINIC rpd mailing list is considered as a step towards participation in

> the PDWG and AFRINIC undertakes to preserve this right so that no one who

> has recently subscribed to the rpd mail list will be debarred and/or

> ‘disenfranchised’ from participating in the Policy Development Process.

>

> (h)  For purposes of clarity, below are subscription numbers from January

> 2019 to 13 August 2020.

>

>

>

> *2019*

>

> *Number*

>

> January

>

> 3

>

> February

>

> 8

>

> March

>

> 3

>

> April

>

> 9

>

> May

>

> 30

>

> June

>

> 53

>

> July

>

> 8

>

> August

>

> 11

>

> September

>

> 3

>

> October

>

> 4

>

> November

>

> 11

>

> December

>

> 18

>

> *2020*

>

> January

>

> 1

>

> February

>

> 13

>

> March

>

> 7

>

> April

>

> 2

>

> May

>

> 5

>

> June

>

> 9

>

> July

>

> 177

>

> August 13th 12:50 UTC

>

> 27

>

> *Current number of list subscribers*

>

> *986*

>

> On this note, AFRINIC encourages the PDWG to increase its engagement in

> the Policy Development Process through their active, substantial

> and constructive participation in developing resource policies that will

> help AFRINIC in its mission of managing Internet Number Resources for the

> African region.

>

> Furthermore, AFRINIC would like to take this opportunity to renew its

> invitation to the AIS’20 meeting and recommend that the community follows

> all procedures put in place for their online registration in

> respect thereof.

>

>

>

> Eddy Kayihura

>

> CEO

>

> ……………………

>

>

> Chers collègues,

>

> Suite à son communiqué publié le 5 août 2020, l'AFRINIC souhaite informer

> sa communauté que suite à son annonce concernant la tenue des élections du

> co-président du groupe de travail sur l'élaboration des politiques ("PDWG")

> et de l'ASO-AC du NRO pour l'année 2020, elle a examiné toutes les réponses

> obtenues à cet égard.

>

> En conséquence, AFRINIC considère qu'il convient de clarifier, pour le

> bénéfice de sa communauté, ce qui suit :

>

> (a) Que la réunion de politique publique ("PPM") est convoquée par le

> Conseil d'administration de l'AFRINIC conformément aux dispositions des

> articles 11.2 et 11.3 des statuts ;

>

> (b) En ce qui concerne l'élection du co-président du PDWG, et bien qu'elle

> ait lieu pendant la Réunion de politique publique, la section 3.1 du

> Consolidated Policy Manual ("CPM") prévoit clairement et sans ambiguïté ce

> qui suit : - "Les politiques en matière de ressources de numéros Internet

> se distinguent clairement des pratiques opérationnelles et des procédures

> générales d'AFRINIC, qui ne sont pas du resort du processus d'élaboration

> des politiques''.

>

> c) Qu'à la lumière du paragraphe b) ci-dessus, le processus d'élection

> applicable à l'élection du coprésident du PDWG ne fait pas partie

> intégrante du CPM et donc est du ressort du conseil d'administration ;

>

> (d) Que, conformément à ce qui précède et après avoir pris en compte le

> contexte exceptionnel de la pandémie COVID-19, le Conseil d'administration

> a récemment décidé, entre autres, que la prochaine réunion de politiques

> publiques se tiendra virtuellement et a même fait publier un processus pour

> les élections pour l'année 2020 applicable à toutes les élections devant se

> tenir en 2020 ;

>

> e) Que, en ce qui concerne le rôle du PDWG, la responsabilité principale

> de ce dernier est de discuter des propositions politiques via Internet

> (liste de diffusion) ou en personne (lors de la réunion en face-à-face).

> Par conséquent, étant donné que le temps imparti aux discussions politiques

> pendant la réunion est limité, un consensus approximatif sur les

> propositions politiques sera déterminé pendant la réunion en tenant compte

> des contributions en ligne et sur place. Le consensus final sera décidé

> après examen des discussions durant la période du dernier appel ;

>

> (f) que le droit attribué à sa communauté de contribuer aux discussions

> politiques, soit en s'inscrivant à la liste de diffusion rpd, soit en

> participant aux discussions de la prochaine Réunion de politiques publiques

> en s'inscrivant et en assistant à la réunion en ligne est sacro-saint et

> que l'AFRINIC renouvelle par la présente son engagement à continuer à

> donner plein effet aux principes d'élaboration des politiques comme stipulé

> dans la section 3.2 de la CPM ;

>

> (g) Que, aux fins du paragraphe (e) ci-dessus, l'inscription à la liste de

> diffusion rpd d'AFRINIC est considérée comme une étape vers la

> participation au PDWG et AFRINIC s'engage à préserver ce droit afin

> qu'aucune personne qui s'est récemment inscrite à la liste de diffusion rpd

> ne soit exclue et/ou "privée" de sa participation au processus

> d'élaboration des politiques.

>

> (h) Par souci de clarté, voici le nombre d'abonnement de janvier 2019 au

> 13 août 2020.

>

>

> *2019*

>

> *Nombres*

>

> Janvier

>

> 3

>

> Février

>

> 8

>

> Mars

>

> 3

>

> Avril

>

> 9

>

> Mai

>

> 30

>

> Juin

>

> 53

>

> Juillet

>

> 8

>

> Août

>

> 11

>

> Septembre

>

> 3

>

> Octobre

>

> 4

>

> Novembre

>

> 11

>

> December

>

> 18

>

> *2020*

>

> Janvier

>

> 1

>

> Février

>

> 13

>

> Mars

>

> 7

>

> Avril

>

> 2

>

> Mai

>

> 5

>

> Juin

>

> 9

>

> Juillet

>

> 177

>

> Août 13 12:50 UTC

>

> 27

>

> *Nombre d'abonnements actuels*

>

> *986*

>

>

>

> Sur cette note, AFRINIC encourage le PDWG à accroître son engagement dans

> le processus d'élaboration des politiques à travers leur participation

> active, substantielle et constructive dans l'élaboration des politiques de

> ressources qui contribueront à aider AFRINIC dans sa mission de gestion des

> ressources numériques Internet pour la région africaine.

>

> En outre, AFRINIC voudrait saisir cette occasion pour renouveler son

> invitation à la réunion de l'AIS'20 et recommander que la communauté suive

> toutes les procédures mises en place pour leur inscription en ligne à cet

> égard.

>

> Eddy Kayihura

>

> CEO

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200814/b0c00ca7/attachment-0001.html>