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

[Daniel Yakmut]

Dear Marcus,
When I say a community I am not referring to individual. But the generality
of the environment. I don't want to go to specifics. But I know there is a
mutual suspicion btw francophonie and anglophones within the AfriNIC
region. It could be my perception, but it exist.

Hence, there is always a 'bloc war" which of course has never been helpful.

Going back to the issue of voting I am not comfortable with any change to
the current method. Either consensus or ranked voting.

I have my different perception, that is - we can restrict voting to only
members. Let us see how we fare on that. But if we want community
participation, the inherent issues I raised of selfishness and rancour must
be address.

Simply
Daniel

On Sep 3, 2020 1:09 PM, "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <madomey at hotmail.com> wrote:

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> 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> 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> 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>

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>

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>

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

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

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

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

>>>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>>>

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> 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

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20200903/329df8fd/attachment-0001.html>