[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

[Marcus K. G. Adomey]

Hi Daniel

You stated and I will quote your previous email that;

“In AfriNIC there is a significant distrust and selfishness within the community”

Now, you are saying that you did not call anybody selfish, thereby changing the tune?

You are also stating that the “proposal for cochairs is not talking of ranked voting, but consensus” yet the proposal has both and it indicated that, if the consensus approach fails then the working group votes using the ranked based voting process also knows as IRV. The process seems clear.

Please ask questions or point what is not clear. Relevant text from the draft proposal may be examined and in particular the ranked voting process needs be included. You can also make suggestions or propose text

Best Regards,


Marcus



________________________________
From: Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 7:00 PM
To: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

Hi Alain,
I did not call any person selfish on the matter of the elections of co-chair. I am expressing an opinion that we maintain the status quo with elections.

The proposal for the co-chair is not talking of ranked voting, but consensus which I consider a very difficult choice.

So my opinion on this matter is still keeping the old order.

Simply
Daniel

On Sep 2, 2020 7:36 PM, "ALAIN AINA via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
Hi Daniel,

I could not refrain from reacting to your statement below.

I am very surprised by how you painted AFRINIC compared to RIPE and it seriously worried me. I urge you to please provide the evidences of your claims.

Since when did the selfishness start? Who are the actors? What are people being selfish about?

The PDP is open to anyone to participate and is designed to accommodate all, irrespective of their origin, affiliation, interests, behaviours etc... by separating roles, imposing transparency, openness.. to prevent and mitigate abuses.

Are we missing something?

So far, you have not proposed anything to address your concerns other that indirectly opposing an improvement for an open and transparent process of appointing cochairs based on merits and consensus ( election by consensus or ranked-choice vote) by the WG.

Regards,

—Alain



> On 1 Sep 2020, at 05:57, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>

> I strongly agree with the salient issues raised here by Owen. I will add that RIPE is able to achieve cohesion because significantly there is selflessness in the community.

>

> In AfriNIC there is a significant distrust and selfishness within the community. Hence, it is important we stick to an election procedure that is partially workable and acceptable. Again, an attempt to radically alter the procedure in such a fractious community can be disastrous.

>

> Simply

> Daniel and

>

> On Aug 31, 2020 5:53 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

> I am the one who said it would not work in Africa and that the discussions in Africa are both more fractious and more drama-prone than in RIPE. While this may be an uncomfortable truth, I believe that it is a measurable and documented fact.

>

> Note that ranked voting is _NOT_ election by consensus at least not as practiced in RIPE and touted by Marcus. Ranked voting is a system of election by vote. It is an alternative to first past the post and I support the idea of Ranked voting.

>

> One could argue that the end result of ranked voting is likely to be consistent with the end result of election by consensus _IF_ a consensus can be reliably achieved within the body of voters in question.

>

> However, ranked choice voting is a kind of mathematically forced consensus and quite different from consensus voting as practiced in RIPE working groups. If the authors wish to modify their proposal to suggest a ranked-choice voting ballot, then I would not have a problem with that aspect of the proposal. That’s not what the current language calls for.

>

> As I pointed out earlier, in RIPE, as long as the consensus has no controversy, it remains easy, but the RIPE solution in case consensus cannot be achieved in the working group is for the RIPE chair to simply decide and there is no appeal or check and balance on his decision.

>

> To be honest, I’m not wild about that process in the RIPE region, but I would find it significantly more abberent in AFRINIC for the following reasons:

>

>       1.      AFRINIC co-chair elections have a history of being significantly

>               more controversial than RIPE. As such, the fallback process which

>               is almost never used in RIPE would likely be far more common in

>               AFRINIC. (I suspect that if the fallback process in RIPE were to

>               see significant usage, its shortcomings would rapidly lead to a

>               more community-oriented approach to co-chair elections).

>

>       2.      The RIPE chair generally enjoys a more widespread and higher level

>               of community trust than is generally granted to the various AFRINIC

>               elected leadership by the AFRINIC community.

>

> Like it or not, these differences between the communities in the various regions do exist and they do impact the ability to successfully use a particular mechanism for conducting elections. IMHO, the paradigm used in the RIPE region is far from ideal even for RIPE, but it works because the RIPE community is surprisingly cohesive and the amount of controversy tends to be significantly less than in AFRINIC.

>

> Owen

>

>

>> On Aug 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>

>> I did not say such thing about Africa, please don't make up stuff.

>>

>> I said very clearly elections by consensus are not good anywhere. Why make up stuff to support your argument ?

>>

>> It is exactly the opposite. "Election" by consensus leaves a great margin for subjectivity and for fraud while election by vote eliminates any subjectivity in the process if the process is auditable.

>> This is how it's done in many other places and work as expected, without margin for disputes.

>> Why have a type of "election" that can only serve for the propose of margin for fraud and more disputes than the current ones ?

>>

>> In my view the only fear of election by vote is from those who may not have them.

>>

>> Fernando

>>

>> On 30/08/2020 10:02, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:

>>> La seule personne qui se répète c'est belle et bien toi Fernando. Tu semble dire qu'en Afrique on est pas capable de gérer une élection par consensus approximatif alors que d'autres régions le font et que c'est utopique, c'est un rêve, etc., pour ton information il existe bel et bien une forme d'élection qui s'apparente à une élection par consensus approximatif merci de suivre le lien suivant : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting. Tu es le seul à vouloir exiger d'aller vers une élection direct, quand on sait tout ce que ça comporte moyen d'abus.

>>>

>>> Cordialement

>>>

>>> Arnaud

>>>

>>> Le sam. 29 août 2020 à 17:28, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a écrit :

>>> You must be joking with it or trying to make tricks and I am having a serious discussion.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> I already answered your question very clearly in the previous message very clearly. If you wish to discuss it in a serious way please go straight to the point.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Fernando

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On 29/08/2020 14:21, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:

>>>> Hi Fernando,

>>>>

>>>> Let me not get involve at this stage in the discussions about which model of election is good or bad for the PDPWG.

>>>>

>>>> You have not answered my question. I am posting it again.

>>>>

>>>> I would like to find out whether you agree that the election by consent is used by working groups in RIPE region?

>>>>

>>>> Please do justice to it.

>>>>

>>>> Thanks

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Marcus

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>

>>>> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 2:29 PM

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

>>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

>>>>

>>>> Seems the authors are actually repeating the same arguments and points.

>>>> I am instead putting the many reasons election by consensus is not feasible, specially in this scenario we are going through currently.

>>>> What doubt you have about this position regardless the RIR or region ? Perhaps you should read the messages again.

>>>>

>>>> Fernando

>>>>

>>>> On 29/08/2020 10:31, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:

>>>>> Hi Fernando,

>>>>>

>>>>> Thank you for your reaction but it appears you are not discussing but repeating yourself with no value add.

>>>>>

>>>>> I would like to find out whether you agree that the election by consent is used by working groups in RIPE region?

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Marcus

>>>>>

>>>>> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>

>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 7:26 PM

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

>>>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures

>>>>>

>>>>> Hello

>>>>>

>>>>> If we are having all this trouble to define the next elections probably

>>>>> because there are multiple people interested in the next elections, how

>>>>> can we dream about any consensus ?

>>>>>

>>>>> Consensus is for proposals, for a collaborative improving process that

>>>>> may take months or even more than an year, not for electing people.

>>>>> What is the fear to have a proper vote process ? 1 person 1 vote and the

>>>>> candidate with most votes wins and servers the term. What can go wrong ?

>>>>> When one is elected with most votes and there are no signals of fraud

>>>>> there is no room for disputes and discussions.

>>>>>

>>>>> Qualified people are people who effectively participate in the

>>>>> construction of the process, who are truly part of it and have

>>>>> commitment to it and not someone who is just passing in front of the

>>>>> door once in a lifetime.

>>>>>

>>>>> Afrinic PDP doesn't even have yet the possibility the Board to appoint

>>>>> interim Co-Chairs when necessary.

>>>>>

>>>>> Fernando

>>>>>

>>>>> On 28/08/2020 15:16, ALAIN AINA via RPD wrote:

>>>>> > Hello,

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Below are our  responses to  last comments received on list on this proposal.

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > ###### Comment 1

>>>>> > Elections by consent is not for real world.

>>>>> > #######

>>>>> >

>>>>> > It does work for working groups chairs selection in RIPE region

>>>>> >

>>>>> > ##### Comment 2

>>>>> > It's just something too utopic.

>>>>> > #######

>>>>> >

>>>>> > As  utopic as  how “rough consensus” appear until you experiment it and cherish

>>>>> >

>>>>> > ###### Comment3

>>>>> > Election by vote where qualified people (with minimal requirements) vote and the candidate with the highest votes win, works in most places in the world with less margin  for further disputes

>>>>> > ######

>>>>> >

>>>>> > there are many models of elections with different ways of qualifying voters, determining the winners, etc....

>>>>> > What you described is just one the them. Not one fits all.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Each  region adopts the best model for its PDP and how chairs/lead for the PDP activities are selected.

>>>>> > https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/rir-comparison-table/

>>>>> >

>>>>> > One can see for example that in the case of LACNIC where, there is an electronic votes by those subscribed to the policy mailing list, the elections results “must” be ratified by consensus among those present  at the PPM as judged by the acting chairs. If results can’t be rectified, board appoint an interim chair.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > The AFRINIC PDPWG adopted in the past  the model of  votes by those physical present at the PPM, until it showed its limit recently.

>>>>> >

>>>>> > Can you please elaborate on how the “qualified people” should be selected in the context the PDPWG for the online voting and how to prevent abuse and further disputes?

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > HTH

>>>>> >

>>>>> > —Alain

>>>>> >

>>>>> >

>>>>> > _______________________________________________

>>>>> > 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

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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



_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto: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/20200903/faa70a9b/attachment-0001.html>