[rpd] Policy Development Process and Elections

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 16, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 

> 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.


Your statement above is condescending, rude, and outright incorrect. They asked our opinions and considered our input. They came to a conclusion that was supported and suggested by several people on the list. It’s a compromise position that incorporates opinions from several different posters. I am not sure (short of completely adopting your personal position) what it is you think they could have done to better represent the diverse opinions received in their call for comments.


> 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.


There were more than 10 times as many (and nearly 100 times as many) registrations in July as normal. I think that a June cutoff is a reasonable response to a perceived abuse attempt against the election. I’m not sure whether I agree with it or not, but I cannot support the idea of calling it unreasonable or claiming that the board is acting in clear violation of their mandate.


> 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.


You’ve been heard and the board addressed your proposal in their original response, stating that for a variety of reasons they felt that action would be counter-productive.


> 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.


Calling it “good advice” is your personal opinion. Others felt it was not so good advice. If you measure every conclusion against your own opinion, you are certainly destined to be disappointed more often than not. The real question is did the board come to a rational conclusion that makes a good faith effort to resolve the issue in a manner commensurate with the mission of AfriNIC.

IMHO, they did, even if it isn’t the exact solution I would have chosen. Yes, there are open “letter of the law” questions attached to this approach, but every possible approach has some variant of “letter of the law” questions associated with it. I trust the board sought advice on this aspect. Perhaps you could gain more by inquiring as to what that advice was rather than throwing (unwarranted) accusations of malfeasance.


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


I’m not sure what this is intended to mean. Who allegedly played you and how? Are you a musical instrument or a game in this statement?

Owen