Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Daniel Yakmut yakmutd at googlemail.com
Fri Oct 2 09:52:10 UTC 2020


I mean AfriNIC members (resource holders).

On 01/10/2020 3:21 am, Owen DeLong wrote:

> When you say “members” do you mean working group members, community

> members, or AfriNIC members?

>

> Owen

>

>

>> On Sep 3, 2020, at 5:26 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

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

>>

>> 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

>> <mailto: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

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

>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 2, 2020 7:00 PM

>> *To:* ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net <mailto:aalain at trstech.net>>

>> *Cc:* rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net

>> <mailto: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

>> <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/

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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

>> <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/20201002/e4b8f2c7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list