[rpd] Policy proposal

[Ibeanusi Elvis]

Dear community, 

Commencing with your interpretation of what the CPM 3.4 Policy Development Process stipulates and comprehension of the email.

1)     First, considering the issue of addressal to the Co-chairs, the CPM in its wisdom did not indicate that the submission should or should not be addressed to a specific person(s), people or group. Besides the required submission to the RPD mailing list, addressal to individuals that represent the interest of the AFRINIC organization like the Co-chairs shouldn’t be an issue.

2)     An acknowledgement needed from the co-chairs through an addressal? Not necessarily. A submission of the proposal to the RPD mailing list which makes it accessible to all, means it’s been acknowledged by all.

3)     According to the CPM 3.3 The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG), “The PDWG has two chairs to perform its administrative functions”. Thus, prompting discussion related to the recall process within the RPD mailing list can be considered an administrative function and adding to the recent development on the recall process, a discussion is needed. 

4)     The motive of the statement “be discussed immediately” does not imply it will kill the proposal. Rather it moves to infer that actions are needed judging by the constant back and forth comments in the mailing list related to the recall.

Regarding the proposal that has been put forward to this community,

First, as you clearly stated, this process has not been tested and the modus operandi is black-box; it would be only wise to be extra careful, be cautious with the process of the Recall Committee, and this current situation being the first of its kind should also receive inputs from necessary places like the AFRINIC Board, RPD mailing list (the community) etc.

The Proposed Policy should be made a necessity. First, it does not seek to alter the pillar of the minimum Board involvement but rather, it strengthens the pillar of the Recall Process. The Board justification for the recall investigation is needed to avoid a repetition of redundant or unwanted recalls when a member disagrees with the co-chair(s) actions. Similarly, there will be no need for setting up a recall committee if there is no justification to do so.

Moreover, the proposal giving the community the amplified opportunity to evaluate the recall committee member by pushing out the names to the RPD mailing list is a great move as not only the integrity of the recall committee members is being gauged but it also avoids conflict of interest, favoritism, and the politicization of the situation like some people mentioned.  

Nothing is being left in the hands of the community, the Board only seeks their opinions and participation on certain areas of the recall process. Remember, the AFRINIC RIR has a bottom-up approach to its functionality. Likewise, the jurisdiction or ecosystem of this RIR is different from others, it would be appropriate if we stop comparing it to others in everything we do.

Additionally, there is no full mechanism in place for the completion of the recall process and purpose of this recall proposal is make the process more explicit and straightforward to evade misinterpretation which most people do. Equally, I don’t support the ideology that this proposal should be outrightly withdrawn by the author but rather some editorial modifications and changes is required to make the proposal due for approval and implementation.

Finally, the set limitation on the recall request for the PDWG Chair(s) is essential as it evades the repetition of redundant requests with baseless justifications. This proposal might be lengthy but as aforementioned, it strengthens the pillar of the recall process and the purpose of Conflict Resolution. Also, it makes the comprehension of the recall process clearer hence its interpretation by being straightforward and unambiguous.

Nonetheless, I have suggestions on the improvements and editorial additions and changes that would strengthen the Recall Proposal which are listed below:

First, the proposal needs to cuts down on words and the lengthiness while maintaining the explicit identity that the proposal aims to achieve and an extension is needed on the time given to the both the community and as the Board to make decisions, vote and so on like (from 2weeks to 4weeks), which I believe gives more time for more sound and clear decisions as to hasty decisions. 

 Also, an increase in the recall final vote from 70% to 75% to affirm the avoidance of doubt within the community and ensure that the Chair(s) are recalled because he or she is not qualified and not based on a frivolous or on an emotional footing. 

Best regards. 



> On Nov 28, 2020, at 7:28, Wijdane Goubi <goubi.wijdane at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Hello,

> 

> We can all conclude from the recent discussions going on in the last RPD posts that the CPM is very vague and unclear about the outcome of the recall’s committee and the process of the request of recall in general. It is unfair to juggle with the faith and reputation of two important individuals that have devoted so much for this community, on personal interpretations of a process that should have been well defined and with clear guidelines.

> 

> Therefore, and according to the section 3.6 of the CPM “The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required”, I am urging the chairs to consider varying the process in this specific case of emergency, to discuss this proposal and come out with its best version so as to fill the void we are facing in the CPM. 

> 

> Kind regards

> 

> 

> Le ven. 27 nov. 2020 à 05:19, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a écrit :

> 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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201128/591ca444/attachment-0001.html>