[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

[Fernando Frediani]

On 12/02/2021 19:25, Owen DeLong wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

>> We have also the problem, with your list, that some of them may be in 

>> Committees (example AC), or involved in policy proposals under 

>> discussion and if we want them to be really neutral, it should be 

>> people that **hasn’t participated in those proposals** discussions. 

>> Someone could think “let’s get opt to withdraw from those policy 

>> proposals …. Come on!, they have already worked in them, and as 

>> humans, it is not 100% safe to believe that they will be objective” 

>> (even if some of the names can be good for my own proposal case, 

>> because they supported them one way or another – I’m trying to be 

>> honest and transparent here).

>

> For co-chairs, you want people that have been active and experienced 

> in the policy arena. Looking for them to meet that criteria and yet 

> never have expressed an opinion on a policy under current (or future) 

> discussion is an unrealistic expectation. Really, we should not 

> disqualify people simply because their name is associated with a 

> policy, but rather we should expect that they will disclose any COI 

> and that we trust them to act on behalf of the community and not 

> merely their own interest.

Sorry but for me this is so naive.
People are human and they have their own opinions which are often 
difficult to separate when they need to act on behalf of the community. 
Even if they strongly believe they know how to separate things most of 
the time they will fool themselves to feel more comfortable they are 
doing it fine. It's human nature.

I believe people need to chose their place: if they made themselves 
available and were elected to act on behalf of the community they must 
not put their personal opinions while their tenure is on and look the 
most neutral possible. Otherwise there will always be doubts and 
distrust from people watching it. If the person is not prepared for that 
it is simple: just don't put himself/herself forward.

Fernando


>

>

> OWen

>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>> El 9/2/21 12:51, "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at forum.org.ng 

>> <mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>> escribió:

>>

>> Errrm, thanks for the vote of confidence, Jordi but I don't think I 

>> have enough bandwidth at this time. Maybe a larger steering group 

>> with more past co-chairs so that the workload isn't so much on any 

>> one person? Yes, we absolutely should salute the co-chairs even when 

>> there are errors in judgement. It's not an easy role.

>>

>> Removing former CEOs and current board members, the ex co-chair pool 

>> (according tohttps://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group 

>> <https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group>) looks like this:

>> Vincent Ngundi

>> Hytham El Nakhal

>> Paulos Nyirenda

>> Tim McGinnis

>> Emile Milandou

>> Adam Nelson

>> Barry Macharia

>> Sami Salih

>>

>> Alain Aina seems to be a reasonable addition given that he has 

>> contributed and continues to contribute actively to policy 

>> development. We could also call for volunteers.

>>

>> This is an interesting situation indeed because at the end of all 

>> this "speculation", someone has to decide on what next (and 

>> regardless of whom it is, someone is going to disagree regarding 

>> their standing... Example "board must not interfere with PDP", "legal 

>> counsel is not legal counsel to the PDWG", etc). Time for us all to 

>> be grown up, it would appear.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Dewole.

>>

>> On 2/9/2021 12:05 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>>> This is why I suggested:

>>> > 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.

>>>

>>>

>>> I still believe that it will be good a transition period with 

>>> previous chairs that have **real and proven experience**.

>>> For example, Dewole and Alan, would you accept to be nominated for 

>>> that transition period (6-12 months I’m guessing)?

>>> Regards,

>>>

>>> Jordi

>>>

>>> @jordipalet

>>>

>>> El 9/2/21 10:54, "Dewole Ajao via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net 

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

>>>

>>> 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> 

>>>>>>> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>

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

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

>>>>>>> <mailto: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  <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>

>>>>> -- 

>>>>> 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.

>>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing 

>>> listRPD at afrinic.net 

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

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

>>>

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

>>> 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>

>> -- 

>> Regards,

>> Dewole.

>>

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

>> 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210212/993938af/attachment-0001.html>