[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

[Dewole Ajao]

The proposed election process may have been workable if we did not 
already have contention over an unusual/unexplained surge in mailing 
list registrations a couple of moons ago. Setting a cut off date before 
that surge then cuts off some real humans that joined the mailing list 
after the surge. What to do?

Dewole.

On 2/9/2021 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> The co-chair model is by far the more common model among all the RIRs.

>

> However, there is one exception and I will say that in its region, it 

> has served the community rather well throughout the history of that RIR.

>

> It’s also the region where I have the greatest familiarity, now being 

> in my 14th year of service in that body.

>

> In our region, we have 15 members and they come from diverse segments 

> of the community (cloud providers, large ISPs, small ISPs, 

> individuals, and more).

>

> Being that I have been involved for so long in that process at such a 

> deep level, my view may be somewhat biased, but if the PDWG wishes to 

> pursue a transition towards an Advisory Council structure instead of 

> just 2 co-chairs, I’m happy to contribute my knowledge and experience 

> to that process.

>

> However, this should not be the immediate fix to the current situation.

>

> The current situation should be resolved in the most efficient 

> possible way to achieve a fair and open election from the existing 

> participants in the community.

>

> Lacking co-chairs to lead the process, I think it should probably fall 

> to the election committee to manage the election process. I propose that:

>

> 1.EC set a date (in the past) at which time you must have been a 

> member of the RPD

> list in order to vote. This should prevent any room stacking and allay 

> any fears of room-stacking.

>

> 2.EC sets a date (~10-14 days out) when nominations open. Anyone 

> eligible person wishing to serve may

> self-nominate or be nominated by another. EC should collect and 

> validate all such

> nominations. All validated nominees should be placed on a slate. 

> Nominations should

> run for 1 week from the opening date.

>

> 3.Each candidate should be able to submit a video and written 

> statement to be posted on the

> AfriNIC web site at the same time as the slate is announced.

>

> 4.Two weeks after announcement of the slate, voting should commence 

> and run for 1 week.

> Each member should make a ranked-choice vote of 1 or more candidates 

> to hold the office.

>

> If you aren’t familiar with ranked-choice voting, 

> https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) 

> <https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)>

> provides good detail.

>

> Essentially, the votes are counted in consecutive rounds, starting 

> with everyone’s first choice.

> The candidate receiving the lowest percentage vote in each round is 

> eliminated and their votes

> are transferred to the next choice of each voter who had contributed 

> to their total votes.

> In this case, since we are electing two co-chairs, once the first 

> candidate reaches a ≥50%

> majority in the ranked-choices, they should be selected to serve out 

> the longer term and

> the next-highest ranked candidate should be selected to serve out the 

> shorter term.

>

> Even this process will take time, but I think we should have a 

> deliberate process and a proper election

> for the fairness of all.

>

> Owen

>

>

>> On Feb 9, 2021, at 00:16 , Dewole Ajao via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net 

>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>>

>> Actually there is no king in the PDP, fortunately or unfortunately. 

>> Hopefully though, the market will be coordinated as best possible 

>> using the untested rules we have to work with in this case.

>>

>> My take:

>>

>> PDP (section 3.5) says a co-chair may be recalled (with request and 

>> justification sent to the board of directors); Logically, the recall 

>> process ends in either recall of the co-chair or continuation of 

>> his/her term. That's all that the conflict resolution section states 

>> and as such we will have to go to another part of the PDP that makes 

>> mention of a truncated co-chair term.

>>

>> The applicable section (i.e. 3.3) says the Working Group may select a 

>> replacement to serve the remainder of the term. Given the current 

>> polarized state of this working group, perhaps Afrinic staff under 

>> the guidance of the CEO and some advisory from the Board (being the 

>> representatives of resource members) could convene an online meeting 

>> in which the working group properly analyzes the situation and 

>> chooses a path forward?

>>

>> Considering our current fear of room stacking ahead of either face to 

>> face and online polls, it would be interesting to see how we resolve 

>> this one. Is this the birth of a PDWG led by a small group rather 

>> than 2 individuals? A group given a mandate to somehow tidy up many 

>> of the flaws in the current PDP?

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Dewole who quickly runs off to get a flame retardant suit :-P

>>

>> On 2/9/2021 7:17 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:

>>>

>>> I don't agree Fernando, a committee does not usually have that 

>>> 'absoluteness' you mentioned. I can also understand the remarks 

>>> 'Findings/Outcome of the Recall Committee' to mean that there is a 

>>> hanging process.

>>>

>>> Please, the committee's outcome remains that the Co-Chairs should be 

>>> recalled. There must be a pronouncement from the board that 

>>> constituted the Recall committee. This is not a market square so we 

>>> cannot take the 'shout of a mad man in the market to mean the 

>>> proclamation of the king'. The king must speak through the 

>>> authorised channel, before the people can accept.

>>>

>>> Therefore, we wait!

>>>

>>> Simply

>>>

>>> Daniel

>>>

>>>

>>> On 09/02/2021 3:18 am, Badru Ntege wrote:

>>>> I believe this is the correct understanding of the outcome.

>>>> We now need to move forward with the selection of new co-chairs.

>>>> The community is committed to accept the outcome of the committee.

>>>> Lets move on.

>>>> Regards.

>>>> *From:*Fernando Frediani<fhfrediani at gmail.com>

>>>> *Date:*Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 01:45

>>>> *To:*"rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy"<rpd at afrinic.net>

>>>> *Subject:*Re: [rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

>>>> No Daniel, the output of the Recall Committee regarding the 

>>>> Co-Chairs is already final (read point 19 from their report) 

>>>> according to whats the CPM says about it, so it does not have to be 

>>>> approved by anyone, not even the Board itself.

>>>> So currently we don't have any Co-Chairs.

>>>> What the Committee has mentioned in the document is for the Board 

>>>> to lead the election of the new Co-Chairs and determine the 

>>>> transition during this interim.

>>>> That's it.

>>>> Fernando

>>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, 19:29 Daniel Yakmut via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net 

>>>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>     Here we are indeed in a strange situation, which we created for

>>>>     ourselves. A situation we were drumming for. I thought we all

>>>>     had it

>>>>     figured out and  that is why we called for recall of the Co-chairs.

>>>>

>>>>     I am baffled that Jordi is already making a suggestion on how

>>>>     to proceed

>>>>     to get new Co-Chairs. When the recommendations of the Recall

>>>>     Committee

>>>>     has not being assented to. Though, I don't know who is to

>>>>     approve the

>>>>     recommendations of the committee.

>>>>

>>>>     Hence, the response of Jordi is not tenable here, since I have

>>>>     not seen

>>>>     any declaration that, we don't have co-chairs. I am aware that

>>>>     the Alan

>>>>     Barret led committee made recommendations, which requires

>>>>     acceptance,

>>>>     approval and implementation.

>>>>

>>>>     I am rather seeing a strange situation in the haste that is being

>>>>     suggested on how to deal with the 'situation of no Co-chairs'.

>>>>

>>>>     I am currently studying the documents provided by the Recall

>>>>     Committee,

>>>>     to enable one make an appropriate comment. But, at this early

>>>>     stages the

>>>>     outcome of the committees report remains just recommendations.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>     Simply,

>>>>

>>>>     Daniel

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>     On 08/02/2021 9:52 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>>>>     > Hi all,

>>>>     >

>>>>     > We are in a very strange situation now.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > We have no co-chairs, we have no meetings (because the Covid)

>>>>     so elections could take place.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > The Recall Committee suggested that the section 3.3 of the

>>>>     CPM shall take effect (if the working group chair is unable to

>>>>     serve his or her full term the WG may select a replacement to

>>>>     serve the remainder of the term).

>>>>     >

>>>>     > The Recall Committee report already suggested that the PDWG

>>>>     should work on this and coordinate with the board.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > Guys, this is our "problem" as a community. Remember that the

>>>>     board is only helping the community here organizing the elections.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > Is not the board who choose the candidates and elects them it

>>>>     is our tasks. Remember that without co-chairs, we can't advance

>>>>     with our work. Who takes care of ensuring a profitable

>>>>     discussion in the list for any policy proposal (and we have

>>>>     many in the table), or even ensuring that there is not any

>>>>     abuse or bad behavior during this period?

>>>>     >

>>>>     > I will like to propose a few ideas and I hope that others

>>>>     also do the same. Remember that this is transition period:

>>>>     >

>>>>     > 1) Ask the board to choose among previous co-chairs that

>>>>     already have proven experience (and hopefully they accept).

>>>>     > 2) Nominate ourselves those previous co-chairs.

>>>>     > 3) A combination of both 1 and 2 above (example, board

>>>>     nominates one, the community another).

>>>>     > 4) Instead of looking for a temporary replacement, asking the

>>>>     board to organize elections in a maximum of 4-6 weeks, using

>>>>     the same procedure that was prepared for the last time and

>>>>     using the same electoral census.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > If we want to board to hear us and take a decision, we should

>>>>     try to reach consensus *among us* without co-chairs. I know it

>>>>     seems difficult, but I'm convinced that at difficult times,

>>>>     this community will be able to work together.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > Eddy, I will love to hear also what you have to say, or if

>>>>     the board already has worked out something, etc.

>>>>     >

>>>>     > Thanks in advance!

>>>>     >

>>>>     > Regards,

>>>>     > Jordi

>>>>     > @jordipalet

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     > **********************************************

>>>>     > IPv4 is over

>>>>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>>>>     >http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>

>>>>     > The IPv6 Company

>>>>     >

>>>>     > This electronic message contains information which may be

>>>>     privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be

>>>>     for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and

>>>>     further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying,

>>>>     distribution or use of the contents of this information, even

>>>>     if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited

>>>>     and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

>>>>     intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,

>>>>     distribution or use of the contents of this information, even

>>>>     if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited,

>>>>     will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the

>>>>     original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     >

>>>>     > _______________________________________________

>>>>     > 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

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>> -- 

>> Regards,

>>

>> Dewole.

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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>

>

-- 
Regards,

Dewole.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210209/183d1901/attachment-0001.html>