Search RPD Archives
[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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list