[rpd] Policy proposal

[Sunday Folayan]

Dear Ekaterina,

Removing the "final say" of the Recall Committee and making it a vote by 
the community is an important value.

All the procedural details outlined are fully exploitable, making is all 
work, but no motion.

Sunday.

On 11/26/20 4:36 PM, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:

> Dear Sunday, dear community,

>

> First of all, I would like to point out that I see no reason to 

> withdraw the policy proposal completely, although some minor editorial 

> changes and corrections of stylistic and grammatical mistakes might be 

> necessary.

>

>  In regards to its content, a proper discussion from the side of the 

> community is due.

>

> From my side, I do not think that the proposal adds operational 

> burdens to the board. Rather, in my view, it makes the process of 

> recall more clear and explicit. The board is already making a decision 

> on whether or not each request is duly justified and worth appointing 

> a committee. The present policy just spells out this process and adds 

> a deadline for the board to make its decision. I think it is a 

> necessary addition as having the board entertain all recall requests 

> without assessing the justifications can prove to be a serious waste 

> of the AFRINIC resources in the long run.

>

> Moreover, setting a recall committee is necessary even if the board 

> decided that a request is justified. The board here only determines 

> whether or not the request has legitimate grounds, while the committee 

> is the one conducting a thorough investigation and making a final 

> report on the issue.

>

> Secondly, I believe that the evaluation of the appointed committee 

> members by the community is necessary to ensure the committee's 

> integrity and ascertain that there are no conflicts of interest. When 

> it comes to a 6 week waiting period, I agree that it is excessive and 

> perhaps could be shortened as to streamline the process.

>

> Thirdly, I believe that it is very important that this proposal 

> outlines the community's participation in every step of the recall 

> process. The AFRINIC is governed through a bottom up process, so it 

> makes sense that the ultimate decision-making power shall remain in 

> the hands of the community. I don't think it would be fair for the 

> recall committee to make such a decision unilaterally. It would rather 

> make more sense for them to create a comprehensive report where they 

> outline all facts and conclusions that is then brought forward to the 

> community for a deciding vote.

>

> Overall, in my view, this policy contains import clarifications to the 

> recall process. In addition, it aims to reinforce AFRINIC's governance 

> values in the sense of keeping the decision making power within the 

> community.

>

> I believe this proposal is a valuable addition to the CPM and thus im 

> looking forward to hear more feedback on this regard from the side of 

> the community.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Ekaterina

>

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, 09:54 Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com 

> <mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com>> wrote:

>

>     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

>     <mailto: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

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

>>     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/20201126/2ffc7c3c/attachment-0001.html>