[rpd] Policy Development Process and Elections

[Noah]

Hi Benjamin

Pleased to see your recent posts as a new member on the list.

I would like to respond to your long email (reminds me of AA) but I want to
make sure its a real person.

Please could you introduce yourself.

Noah

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 08:16 Benjamin Investor, <investor0189 at gmail.com>
wrote:


> 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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200815/9e13f658/attachment-0001.html>