Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Policy Development Process and Elections

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sun Aug 16 20:26:03 UTC 2020


Exactly. Very well said.

+1

On 16/08/2020 17:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> Hi Daniel,

>

> Regarding to your point 2 below.

>

> Do you really think that it is wise for anyone to participate in the

> meeting, support or object to policy proposals that you didn’t read

> (as you’re not in the list), or ignoring all the discussion in the list ?

>

> I think it is a very bad idea. It means re-discussing in the meeting

> (where time is short), issues that may have been sufficiently

> clarified in the list.

>

> But on top of that, if you come to the meeting, I understand that you

> come to help to improve the CPM, right ?

>

> Consensus is based in community participation. Forget about who is the

> author, that’s not the important point. What is relevant is “we have a

> problem or something that can be improved for the good of the

> community, let’s do that”.

>

> In IETF meetings, we ask “who has read the document?”. As you can

> guess I don’t expect anyone not having read the document, to provide

> good inputs. In fact, I personally will feel very embarrassed if I

> participate in any WG meeting and have not read the documents and

> followed the discussion, because not only I’m wasting my time, but

> also wasting the time of the other participants.

>

> If I participate in IETF (or any RIR meeting) is because I want to

> contribute, I do that with the same level of seriousness and

> commitment as if it an obligation, even if is self-imposed. If I’m

> being funded by anyone (sponsor or employer), that’s even more a real

> obligation.

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 16/8/20 20:27, "Daniel Yakmut" <yakmutd at googlemail.com

> <mailto:yakmutd at googlemail.com>> escribió:

>

> I want to State as follows:

>

> 1. I am very disturb with the action the CEO and the board are about

> to take. If the CEO and the Board had an opinion on the elections, why

> did they disturb us by asking an opinion. Subjecting us to sheer

> exercise that is fruitless was a bad precedent and can have adverse

> effects in future. The attempt to hijack the process of the election

> by the board regardless of what the bylaw (which is flawed) says, is

> not right.

>

> 2. The attempt to gag and manipulate the process is more shocking, as

> it is being attempted through closing the doors on who is qualify to

> vote. In the face to face meeting I can register and attend and vote

> without being subscribed to the rpd. So why will we say some people

> cannot vote if they are not in mailing list fors six. I will rather

> suggest voter register closes a week before voting.

>

> 3. However, I am still of the opinion that conducting an online voting

> is not expedient this year. Hence, the one year old and extension is

> still worth considering.

>

> 4. What could possibly be the legal implications of the board

> hijacking the responsibility of the PDWG and going against good advise

> to postpone and make things right first.

>

> 5. Finally, I feel unhappy with how I was played.

>

> Simply,

>

> Daniel

>

> On Aug 16, 2020 9:06 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD"

> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>

> Hi Benjamin,

>

> I think you raise very interesting points and many people don’t

> know about it:

>

> 1.If you need a break on the RPD, you don’t need to cancel your

> registration, you can manage your registration, to pause the

> reception of emails.

>

> 2.The opinions of the people in the list are as community, so

> individuals, not organizations. You could perfectly have a

> different opinion as “employee” and “individual”. You could even

> state that and show the arguments on both sides.

>

> 3.Policies are for the good and fairnes of resource distribution

> for the community, which this may be some times against interest

> of private organizations. That’s perfectly normal.

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 16/8/20 8:12, "Benjamin Investor" <investor0189 at gmail.com

> <mailto:investor0189 at gmail.com>> escribió:

>

> Dear Noah,

>

> Thanks for pointing out what I said. Having a cut off date would

> not solve the problem at hand Infact it would only complicate

> issues. At the same time not having a cut off date would also be a

> problem. We need to find a way of electing  a new chair hence my

> suggestion.  Therefore  what is necessary now is having a reform

> via a poicy. We need to make rules that would guide against things

> we have noticed. But before then can we agree on my suggestion on

> how to solve the problem?

>

> By the way am not new on the the rpd. I was on and left because I

> needed a break from the mailing list tuggle and I couldn't to

> comment then cos I always needed the permission of my employer to

> comment. But decided to join back as part of the July statistics

> as my new employer dose not care about my comment on the AFRINIC

> issues.

>

> Dear Co- Chairs no one seams to disagree with my suggested way

> forward. Can you please seek for consensus on my proposal?

>

> On Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 12:45 PM Noah <noah at neo.co.tz

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

>

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20200816/8aa4cf1a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list