[rpd] Policy proposal

[Sunday Folayan]

Good Morning,

Apologies for a long email, but ... If it has to be, it has to be and up 
to us.


In order to ensure that we focus on what is helpful, let me point out a 
couple of issues with this proposed policy.

Referring to the CPM

3.4  Policy Development Process
*Anyone can submit a proposal. Policy proposals are submitted to the 
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net) by the 
author*. AFRINIC will provide administrative support and assist the 
author(s) in drafting the proposal if requested. AFRINIC shall also 
provide relevant facts and statistics if requested during the discussion.

One can see that:

1. The submission was sent to rpd at afrinic.net ... This is OK

2. The submission was addressed to the Co-Chairs ... This is Unnecessary

3. Addressing the Co-Chairs could suggest that they must acknowledge ... 
Not really

4. The Co-Chairs must trigger discussions ... Not according to the CPM.

5. The Co-Chairs not acting immediately, could kill a proposal ... Not 
at all


Having outlined the above, let us deal with the substance of the 
proposal - co-chair recall.


The substance of the current recall provision in the CPM is:

   - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee

   - The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the 
justification for the recall

   - The conclusion of the recall committee shall determine the outcome


It is important to therefore note that:

   - The Appointment of the Recall committee is at the discretion and 
wisdom of the AfriNIC Board.

   - Beyond appointing a recall committee, the AfriNIC Board does not 
even need to know the merit or otherwise of the recall

   - The recall committee's work/report, does not require the approval 
of the AfriNIC Board.

   - The entire process does not have any input from the rpd.

   - The process has never been tested.

   - The recall committee's modus Operandi is a black-box. Hence until 
it is tested, it is not wise to modify it


The substance of the proposed policy:

   - The AfriNIC Board shall investigate the circumstances of the 
justification for the recall

   - The investigation will include community consultations

   - The AfriNIC Board will junk the recall, if it sees no justification 
for the recall

   - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall then appoint a recall committee

   - There is a time waster - Name Challenge process embedded therein. 
Pick 9 members one at a time for 6 weeks. One Year is gone!

   - If the Recall committee Stands, it will go ahead and determine if a 
recall is necessary

   - If a recall if not necessary, its work is done.

   - If a recall is necessary, it will submit a report to RPD, that will 
then vote whether to recall or not

   - A Supermajority vote (70%) is needed to affirm the recall

   - Where the vote is not obtained, the recall also fails.


The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter the pillar of 
minimum Board involvement, without clearly articulating why.

Indeed, it goes ahead to burden the Board with more work.

Especially With:

(A) The Board shall first investigate into the recall request within 4 
weeks upon receiving the recall request and decide whether the recall 
request is justified or not, after having consulted with the community’s 
opinion in the mailing list.


This is at total variance with the spirit of the current process and 
provisions that simple gives the Board an administrative duty of 
appointing the independent committee that will then go ahead to 
determine the appropriateness of the recall request.

The proposal brings the Board into the role of being the RPD umpire, and 
determining the merits or otherwise of the recall request, before 
setting up a committee. Why the need to setup a committee, if it will 
have determined the merit or otherwise of the recall proposal?

All other details of the proposal follow the same pattern ... solving a 
perceived problem, without really paying attention to the underlining 
principle that allows flexibility and creativity, without allowing 
process capture.

Indeed, proceeding on pushing this proposal through, will take at least 
One Public Policy meeting, and therefore will not meet the needs of the 
current situation.

In my humble opinion, I think the Author should withdraw the proposal 
which was definitely submitted in haste, wait for the play of the 
current situation, see the determination of the matter, learn from it, 
and then use the experience to make a proposal that will be better ... 
but definitely not with all those details in the draft proposal that are 
laced with traps and mines, too many for me to begin to enumerate herein.

Volunteer work is extensive, demanding and requires a lot of input. 
Haste in not one of those ingredients.

Do have a nice day.

Sunday.


On 11/24/20 2:56 PM, Abdulrauf Yamta wrote:

> Dear Co-Chairs

> Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC Co-Chair Recall 

> process. In view of some current development, and the need to have a 

> recall process properly defined we seek that the chairs should seek 

> that this proposal be discussed immediately.

> Thanks

>

> Abdulrauf *Yamta*

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201125/40189487/attachment.html>