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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 8, 2020, at 11:53 AM, ALAIN AINA via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 

> Hi,

> 

>> On 3 Sep 2020, at 07:34, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>> 

>> 

>> 

>>> On Sep 1, 2020, at 11:33 AM, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2020, 21:15 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>>> 

>>> 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.

>>> 

>>> Hi Owen

>>> 

>>> Actually the current language calls for vote by ranked-choice voting only when the consensus based approach can’t be achieved.

>>> 

>>> The proposed process takes into consideration the following;

>>> 

>>> 1. Allow all those who are present (physically and remote) to participate in the election by consensus.

>>> 

>>> 2. If consensus can’t be reached then allow voting with a secret ballot using ranked choice voting (IRV). 

>>> 

>>> 3. If it becomes impossible to hold secret ballot in step 2 above, then the seat is declared vacant and the board chair appoints an interim cochair.

>>> 

>>> The expectation is that the first option ( consensus based ) suffices most of the time since voting  is to be avoided as much as possible in the context of the PDWG.

>> 

>> The problem with this approach is that you are now making the election subjective because you are depending on a single person to decide whether consensus exists or not.

> 

> 

> No. The consensus is built by the WG and not by co-chairs who just lead and facilitate the process to it.

> You keep exaggerating cochairs role in the consensus process  which I find inappropriate. 


I did not say that the consensus is built by the co-chair, I said that the remaining co-chair decides whether or not it has been achieved which is what is specified in the proposal as I read it. As such, I do not believe I have exaggerated anything, rather I believe you have misinterpreted my words (which I find an understandable human error without feeling the need to accuse you of malice in doing so).


> Even if that was the case, having  2 cochairs deciding whether consensus has been reached or not could also be subjective... we may need to create a “college of cochairs.” or move close to something you are used to.


Yes… Co-chairs deciding consensus can be subjective as was proven in a recent successful appeal of co-chairs decision and another recent case where co-chairs reversed themselves rendering the pending appeal moot.

Subjectivity in the policy development process has enough other checks and balances (appeal committee, board ratification, etc.) that I am comfortable with the level of subjectivity that can creep in there.

However, applying that same subjectivity to an election process with no possibility of appeal, no board ratification, no checks or balances whatsoever is fraught with problems IMNSHO. To be clear, I am not advocating
for adding the overhead of an appeals process, board ratification, etc. to the co-chair election process. However, I do think that the lack of them makes this a very different animal from determining consensus on a policy proposal.


> Discussions about who is best candidate to serve as cochair is far easier than discussing policies with the complexity it has some times.


Even if I agreed with you (and I do to some extent, but not entirely), this really has little relevance to the issues with deciding a co-chair election based on the remaining co-chair’s opinion of whether or not consensus has been reached.


> BTW: the PDP allows the WG to hold meeting with one co-chair and even an interim chair to be selected on the fly if co-chairs can not attend meetings:


Yes, but I’m not sure how that is relevant here.

> 

> ——

> If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting, the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate in the selection process for a temporary Chair.

> ——-

> 

> In all cases, if consensus can’t be reached, there is  a fallback scenario. 


Yes, but there is no protection for the scenario where consensus is not reached, but the existing co-chair declares consensus in spite of that fact.


>> Based on my observations of past elections in the AFRINIC region, I believe this approach to be highly dysfunctional in the context of the AFRINC region and so I oppose the policy proposal as written.

> 

> 

> Selection of cochairs in AFRINIC was simple and easy until recently... 


And it likely will be again. The core issue here is a restoration of trust in the processes and process leaders at AfriNIC. This proposal will not accomplish that. Instead it creates further opportunities for inappropriate manipulation of the process and even greater distrust.



> What we’ve seen recently is abuse of the lack of detail on how to select cochairs as the PDP just has the following

> ——

> The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year term

> ——

> The WG was able to manage this swiftly until recently.


We can agree to disagree. What I believe we have seen recently is a symptom of a greater problem of distrust and mistrust of both systems and people. These issues of trust and of a fractured and fractious community must be addressed and this proposal will, IMHO, only exacerbate them.


> What we are doing through this proposal is to fix these loopholes.


Again, I disagree. What you are doing with this proposal is creating different opportunities for abuse in the process and allowing that abuse to be committed by a smaller number of individuals with greater effect. This will further erode public trust in the process and exacerbate the real problems that we are seeing.


>> Take out the consensus and go straight to ranked choice voting, and you have a policy proposal which might be viable for the AFRINIC region, though I’m not wild about step 3 as my willingness to trust the chair of the AFRINIC board to appoint a co-chair in the event that a secret ballot can be prevented is a limited and I see this as a potential attack vector on the process.

>> 

>> IMHO, the fallback if a secret ballot cannot be accomplished should be a return to the show of hands (or on-line equivalent).

> 

> Traditional voting is to be avoided as much as possible in this context of the PDPWG. This WG’s first choice in decision making  is consensus.


You keep saying that like it’s some sort of hard and fast rule that must be applied to every aspect of the operation of the group. You’re making that up and it’s not an actual requirement anywhere. That particular method applies ONLY to policy development at this time and expanding it to co-chair elections is a move towards increased dysfunction, not a solution.


>>> The spirit of volunteerism with an objective to serve the working group by those who aspire to be cochairs should be the goal above competitive elections which in most cases are subjective since personal interest supersedes collective community interest.

>> 

>> That’s a lofty ideal, but reality in this region is that allowing subjective judgement of consensus in the appointment of a co-chair will not achieve that outcome and is more likely to lead to further fractious and contentious arguments over each and every step of the election process.

>> 

>> In a community that can’t even accomplish a show of hands without having to re-engineer the process at each and every meeting due to objections from the floor, I have difficulty believing that widespread consensus will magically appear to replace that process just because we say it should.

> 

> 

> I hope  the explanation above about the challenges leading to the continuous re-engineering of the election process at each meeting helps with the definition of  the problem statement. We can then  give chance to this community to address the problem appropriately .


I well understood the problem and agree that a solution is needed. I just think that this proposal is the opposite of a solution.

Owen