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

[Arnaud AMELINA]

...


> And in this specific case, I clearly said, that I will support that

> election procedure if I can see the actual candidates withdrawing in favor

> of a single one of them. For that you don’t need the policy change. It can

> be done right now. Then you can change the policy to do that in a

> consistent manner in following elections.

>

>

>

> I hope my position is very clear.

>

>

>

> Tks

>

>

>

> Jordi

>

>

>


Hi Jordi,

Oh yes your position is clear and what you want is the expected outcome of
the proposed appointment model. See below.

0. Candidates are known on the list at least 30 days before the meeting

Once all candidates are known, some may step down in favor of others and
only the best/preferred may remain on slate

1. Election by consensus
For the remaining candidates, nominators present arguments for their
candidate.
Arguments and discussions shall focus on candidate ability to fulfill the
requirements of the role and responsibilities.
Along these discussions some candidates or nominators may withdraw and the
WG converges towards the best candidate.

If not, the WG can also through consensus, make the discussions on one
candidate among the rest.

2. if consensus can’t be reached at the PPM, a ranked-choice voting is
organized for those who are physical present.

Here, if a candidate has more than half of the vote based on first-choices,
that candidate wins.

If  not, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and then the
voters who selected the eliminated candidate as a first choice have their
votes added to the totals of their next choice.( another way of withdrawal
of candidates)

This process continues until a candidate has more than half of the votes.

When the field is reduced to two, it is then  about comparing the top two
candidates.

NB: this voting and the counting of all rounds can be done electronically
with immediate results verifiable by all.

The proposal went further with the consensus approach by imposing the
following in case of tie between 2 final candidates:

“In the unlikely event that after all the rounds of counting of the vote,
there is a tie between the two (2) most ranked candidates, they shall be
asked to select one among them to serve the term by consensus. The seat
shall be declared vacant in case of failure of agreement between the last
two.”

I hope the explanation above adds more clarity and so you could bear with
us and allow this community to better select cochairs through  mechanisms
which promote merit and quality and enhanced  the WG and PDP.

Thanks

Arnaud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200904/b62b6b2d/attachment.html>