Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Report from Recall Committee
owen at delong.com
Fri Feb 12 21:56:22 UTC 2021
> On Feb 12, 2021, at 11:22 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> For some reason, you got me wrong…. see below Bold and Italics
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:37 AM
> To: Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>; Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Report from Recall Committee
>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 03:20 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> Dear PDWG,
>> The Co-chairs appointment mechanism was by show of hands of those attending the face to face meeting where the elections were held until this got abused by filling the room with fake participants for the sake of voting.
>> Using the rpd list as a voter register was never an option since the mailing list is open to anyone to participate in policy discussions and decisions are made by consensus.
> The room is supposed to be open to anyone as well, Marcus, so I don’t see how that’s different.
> The PDP is fully open for anyone to participate in both Online discussion and face to face.
> Filling the room with people for just the sake of voting made the appointment of cochairs by voting at the face as face infeasible, as well as with RPD list.
Apparently not. We succeeded at electing co-chairs in Senegal despite this behavior.
While there were multiple accusations in the opposite direction claiming that happened in Uganda, nobody
has presented any hard evidence, so those are questionable at best. Despite this, we still managed to elect
We also managed to elect co-chairs on-line.
So history suggests that your statement above is not accurate.
>> The Co-chair role is just a voluntary administrative role which requires a certain level of experience and most importantly acceptance by the working group.
> What is needed here is simply a volunteer with the adequate experience known and accepted by the WG to take on this administrative role.
> This should not be too hard to address. We are not the first or the only one appointing WG chair in the world.
> PDWG has been appointing cochairs since the inception of AFRINIC We face a certain evolution of things and must respond to.
Not disagreeing with you, just not understanding how this is relevant or what evolution you are referring to.
We simply need to proceed with the election of co-chairs, ideally by first coming to consensus around a process for a free and fair election
that is acceptable to all parties.
If you are worried about stacking the room, then as others have suggested, those subscribed to the mailing list prior to the previous election
is a perfectly fine mechanism to prevent room stacking… You cannot retroactively subscribe to the list prior to that date in order to manipulate
>> Please let us discourage this notion of “everything must be elections and voting” and give a chance to appointment of cochair by acclamation or consensus.
> Marcus, a show of hands in the room is not acclamation or consensus, it is a vote.
> Please read me again. I said let stop this " everything by elections and voting" and give chance to consensus and acclamation
> In different words, please stop "show of hands in the room" and "voting with RPD as voter register.”
If you think that the community would support such a change, then the way to do so is by amending the CPM to call for co-chair election
by acclamation or consensus. I will point out that the chairs that were just recalled were re-elected by acclamation/consensus in the
last election, as the opposition dropped out of the race and there was no call for a vote of no-confidence or for alternative candidates
from the community.
Currently, the CPM calls for an election and we should follow that rule until such time as it is amended by the will of the community.
Certainly, we should not be choosing this time of crises as an opportunity to make up the rules as we go along. Now more than ever is a time
to stick to the remaining structure of the institution to protect the rights of community members and minimize confusion and suspicion.
>> If by miracle consensus can’t be reached on a candidate to serve, we defer to the membership to vote and select co-chair.
> It is not a miracle if we cannot reach consensus. It is an unfortunate fact of where we are today.
> If by membership, you mean the membership of the PDWG, then a vote is exactly what most people are proposing.
> There is no membership defined for the PDWG and once again, there are better approach than the PDWG voting…
If you think that’s true, then submit a proposal to amend the CPM in that direction and let’s see if the community agrees with you.
Until that time, the rules don’t align with what you are asking for here.
If you think we need a defined membership of the PDWG, then again, I say put forth an amendment to the CPM to accomplish that goal
and let’s see if the community supports it.
> If by membership you mean (as you state below) AfriNIC membership, then no… That’s not an acceptable alternative because…
> You have the right to disagree…
I’m not the only one who disagrees with you on this… The CPM disagrees with you and that is the rules by which this body is supposed
to operate. We just recalled two co-chairs allegedly in part because of their failure to follow the PDP as defined in the CPM and
now as a result your suggestion is to diverge further from the defined processes and policies to make up new rules for how we
appoint co-chairs? I think that’s not only a bad idea, it’s an act of mob rule instead of an orderly transition.
>> Either through registered members ( the board ) or resources members or by the full membership.
> Membership in AfriNIC is open to those that have resources, those that are elected to the board, and those that pay some significant annual fee.
> Membership in the PDWG is open to all who have an interest in participating.
> The PDP calls for the co-chairs to be selected by the PDWG, not the AfriNIC membership and there is good reason for this.
> Oh yes. as there many good reasons for why the PDP does not prescribe or prohibit a selection mechanism.
> So the WG may decide to defer the selection to any other bodies including the AFRINIC membership, which a key stakeholder in AFRINIC Community.
> PS: Actually the PDP calls for the co-chairs to be selected by AFRINIC community.
Yes… The AFRINIC community. How would you define the AFRINIC community to have a more expansive scope than the PDWG? What definition would you apply here?
Or is it your intent to claim that there are members of the PDWG who are not members of the AFRINIC community and should be disenfranchised from the election of the co-chairs of the committee?
My argument would be that the PDWG and AFRINIC community are nearly synonymous, but that by definition, the AFRINIC community is most certainly a superset of the PDWG participants.
> Are not ARIN AC members elected by ARIN general membership?
Yes, and I’m quite certain numerous people, including John Curran himself could verify that I have long sought to change that fact and open the election of the AC to the broader community. I do not hold ARIN up as an example of perfection. It is a well functioning RIR with a vibrant and active community and a generally well functioning and collegial policy development process and community, but that does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything or feel that everything there is an ideal way to function.
Are you arguing that because I come from a region where the election of the leadership is flawed in the way you propose that I’m somehow expected to think that AFRINIC should embrace the same flawed process?
> Please do not disenfranchise so much of the community so arbitrarily.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD