[rpd] Policy proposal

[Fernando Frediani]

I will try to put below the many reasons I strongly oppose this 
proposal. I ask people to take the time to read and understand certain 
details that must be taken in consideration when trying to change such 
critical thing for a Policy Development Forum, specially those who have 
been inflamed by the recent events and that may be trying to push for 
this unreasonable change in what a seems a desperate try to having some 
people protected.

- In ANY Policy Development Forum there must be a mechanism to recall or 
dismiss the Chairs and that is a perfectly thing to happen. That in most 
places in most RIRs lies in the hands of the Board of Directors of the 
RIR directly or indirectly and that is perfectly fine for those who have 
been surprised with it. And that mechanism DOES NOT necessarily have to 
have a final saying from the community. There are many reasons for that 
among it:

1) The difficulty to leave it in the hands of the community for any 
situation and to be able to act quickly when necessary for the 
protection of the RIR.
2) Not necessarily the community will taken a decision that goes towards 
the interest of the members of the RIR. Rather then a fair and impartial 
decision it will always be a political decision which is a tragedy in 
such situations.
3) The counterweight weights system that must exist in this ecosystem.
4) It is much convenient to leave in the hands of the Board of Directors 
than delay this type of decision for 'who knows how long'(several 
months?) to gather community together to take a decision. Board of 
Directors must be able to act quickly when necessary to remove a bad 
Co-Chair who may be seriously damaging PDWG or the RIR.
5) The Board of Director is to be considered a trustable body to take 
such an important decision not only the benefit of the RIR but also most 
of the time in the benefit of the community. They have the proper means 
to do that with the help of staff and other people to take an proper and 
impartial decision.
6) The Board of Directors WILL NOT simply take this decision as their 
pleasure, but only in very exceptional situations when needed and taking 
in consideration the justifications presented and asked by a certain 
numbers of the community.

- It is not true what the Summary of the proposal says that the CPM does 
not have a full mechanism to complete a recall process. Despite some 
people may not like it given the actual circumstances, the process 
exist, is clear how it works and is similar to how it's done in other 
RIRs, therefore there is nothing exotic or different here in AfriNic.

- There are reasons here and in other places the removal of Co-Chairs is 
in the hands of the Board. That was well considered when it was first 
thought and written. Perhaps people supporting this proposal may not 
have full knowledge about these reasons. Does anyone find wrong after a 
proposal reached consensus it has to be submitted for the Board's 
ratification ? Probably not, and the same way there are proper reasons 
for that. Otherwise following the improper justifications of the 
proposal someone may also say that proposals should also not have to be 
ratified by the Board which would be something unprecedented.

- Limiting the recall request for the PDWG Chair(s) is so absurd that if 
a recall request is denied by the Board it means the Co-Chair at the 
time will be free to commit any mistakes anf faults they wish with no 
left mechanism at all to be Recalled until the end of their term. There 
MUST BE no limit of recall requests as long there are justifications and 
proper evidences for that. It is up to the Board to decide if that 
request make sense or not and accept or dismiss it. It is unthinkable to 
consider people will just fill Recall requests just for pleasure without 
any evidences of serious faults of the Co-Chairs. It is fair enough to 
trust the Board of Director will do their job properly and seriously on 
such situations.

- Having the board to 'consult the community' is something totally 
unnecessary. It is up to them to do that checking and verification they 
feel necessary and therefore this burden must not be imposed to them 
that have the necessary mechanisms to find out about the evidences 
presented.

- Having the Board to investigate the "challenged integrity" of the 
members of the Recall Committee is another complete absurd and a huge 
burden to the Board. We should trust the Board will take necessary 
consideration to appoint members and not have the risk to go into a 
endless process made not to work of several steps in order to not have 
the case resolved. Board decision should not be at the validation of the 
community as proposed. This proposal is giving excessive and unnecessary 
work to the Board in a exotic scenario that is unknown in any other 
forums worldwide.

- The proposal uses another exotic term "super majority" for the Board 
votes without specifying what that means in that scenario which suggest 
the proposal was written with a lot of passion and little thinking or 
consideration about it.

- Adding a vote recall for the community is the most absurd thing in the 
proposal. That takes over the well established mechanism that lies in 
the hands of the Board of Directors to pass it to the community that 
will probably not have by far the necessary mechanisms to check the 
evidences and decide on such complex matter. Also that might put in 
serious danger the interests of the RIR to have such process out of the 
control of the Board of Directors. Besides creates a totally new and 
exotic mechanism that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world.

- In analogy let's compare the Recall process with a trial. Has anyone 
even seen a non-criminal trial decision decided "by votes" and not by 
judges ? No that is taken by professional judges who have the means and 
the trust to take such complex decision with impartiality. If the final 
decision is based in a vote that becomes a pure political process and 
puts in danger the interest of RIR.

- For the "final vote Recall" the proposal puts an absurd 70% 
"supermajority" which seems to be meant in order to never be able to 
Recall any chairs. In such situations the risk of vote manipulation is 
high and 70% would hardly be reached bringing again a serious danger to 
the RIR.

- The whole proposal is over-complicated, takes time and seems to be 
make to never work. There are so many steps involved and times to go 
through that in practice it voids the workable existent and efficient 
process currently available in the CPM.

I agree with the statement that: "The substance of this draft proposal 
seeks to alter the pillar of minimum Board involvement, without clearly 
articulating why.", that it burdens the Board with a lot of extra work 
and that this proposal was submitted in haste and biased by the current 
situation.

Regards
Fernando

On 24/11/2020 10:56, 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/20201127/352e351e/attachment.html>