Search RPD Archives
[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