[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.html>