[rpd] Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Sunday,

 

The problem of making a selection in the PDWG in an open way, trying to reach consensus is that:
There is a high risk that you have more than 2 candidates.
There is a risk of people not willing to “openly” support or object to the candidates.
It means, in case of 1 above, more time -> you need to fall back to elections.
 

Instead going to the option 1 that most of the people in the PDWG supported, allows do to the same in terms of results. We did that last time. We had initially 4 or 5 candidates for a single position, some people in the PDWG openly (and I guess in private) suggested to the candidates to step down in favor of just one candidate, and it happened. This save a lot of time, because it happens in paralel to the elections, so is a “risk-free” option.

 

Now, as you are asking me to state what was my position … before all this started I said it in the list:

 

See point 1 at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012234.html.

 

I guess most of the people didn't noticed it. So this is consistent with choices 3 & 4 and with my last explanations.

 

I don’t think any choice we take is agains the PDP, because it is an unprecedent situation, very simple, but beyond that, the Board can make use of the bylaws to make a temporary policy that amends the PDP, decide on the process they wish and then, once we have a meeting, the community can make a new choice.

 

However, as said, because I think consensus is what we should follow, I’m fine with any other choice that works and don’t create troubles or discrimination.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 18/2/21 23:33, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com> escribió:

 

Jordi,

First of all, A lot of thoughts and work went into the summary of the discussions that you made. Your contributions and efforts are quite appreciated. Merci Beacoup.

Having said that, I have not changed my position since you started the Pre co-chair selection coordination, (ie Follow the provisions of the CPM, appoint WG Chairs, do not ask the Board to appoint WG Chairs) It may not be so popular in terms of how many times it has been repeated, but it is consistent with the CPM.

Regarding the deadline and the transmission you made to the Board, the purpose of the deadline was to give an input to the Board, supposedly before its meeting, but ... Does the WG need any Board action? The answer is NO! Was that a procedural error? YES.  Am I complaining now? NO!  Can it be rectified? YES!

What is your take on Sylvian's request on the need to follow the CPM provisions?

At some point, you mentioned not having a preference, about the probable course of action. Perhaps it is time to reveal your preference. Do you agree with following the subsisting provisions of the CPM?

Sunday.

 

On 2/18/21 10:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

Hi Sunday,

 

I started by saying that if someone else want to do it … and nobody responded. I even pointed that may be the RC can do it.

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012299.html (also see previous emails asking the Board and CEO to move on, etc.)

We had a deadline (17th), during all those days, nobody objected, nobody voluntered. I stayed silent about my own personal opinion, and a few hours before the deadline, released the summary.

If anyone volunterred ahead of the deadline, I will just provided him the notes that I was taking, so he/she could have continued.

So I can’t agree in your point about this.

So complaining afterwards, and not having volunteered, is like what we say in spain "Like the dog in the manger, neither eats nor lets eat", not sure if this has a better translation in English in terms of an equivalent expression.

I’m sorry to be a person of “actions”, but definitively will not “wait forever” if nobody else is acting. So yes, I’m guilty for that. Guilty for ensuring that we provide inputs before a deadline that was set to the PDWG.

I will love to see if the staff can do their own review of all the inputs and can say that the conclusion is different …

Let’s see if that happens.

Regards,

Jordi

 

 

El 18/2/21 21:23, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com> escribió:

 

Sylvain,

You wrote

"10| Let's back to the PDP to do the only task  we PDWG are allowed to do without our Chairs.  Sunday, please can you handle the process  to help the PDWG to enforce its PDP?" 

 

 

Enforcing the PDP is not the role of anyone person. We all should be active and vigilant.

I can initiate things, by pointing out that many wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes, in haste, we fail to look at the details, nor pause to look at small details. No matter how far one may have gone in a wrong direction, it is best to course-correct as soon as possible.

 

Jordi acted in good faith,  with some level of urgency to move the group forward, but missed a very important step ... ie properly volunteer to be a temporary WG Co-Chair, and wait for some acclamation. It will not have called for his legitimacy being questioned, specifically by Arnaud with:

 

"Who appointed  you in this role? don’t you think board, staff are following discussions and can make their own minds and judgment on the discussions and  the  outcomes? Or is your intention to influence or bias discussion". 

 

I still insist that the provisions of the PDP, according to the CPM is:

 

"If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term. If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting, the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate in the selection process for a temporary Chair"




 

See the word selection process there? That is what we need to define by consensus. As a working group, we can select our Co-Chairs, by simply asking the staff/Policy Liaison to call for volunteers, and shepherd the process, reverting always to the WG for guidance, when needed (which ultimately defines the process)

 

I like the proposition by Noah, specifically:

 

"Can AFRINIC staff and specifically Madhvi take up the lead and work with the WG to ensure that its following the CPM to fill the vacancy.  I dont support the rushed work that was done here by Jordi since there is already claims of misinteretation.  Please afford this working group time to self organise"

 

I urge everyone to adopt it, as a way forward with an Affirmative YES.  Personally, I support the above CPM-compatible line of action.

 

Anyone can also propose some other CPM-Compatible action

 

Sunday.

 

 

On 2/18/21 1:04 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote:

{start a new thread from [1]}

 

Dear PDWG,

Hope you are safe and well!

 

<tl;dr>

This PDWG has violated its own PDP by reaching a consensus non PDP-compliant. In fact, the actualités CPM (version 1.6) contains no provision which could allow the PDWG to varying the process without at least one PDWG's Chair in place.

<tl;dr>

 

...i first want to thank Jordi, for have right•ful•ly 

decided to coordinate PDWG actions during 

this post-recall PDWG's Chairs transition period. 

He did well (because the PDP [2] implicitely 

allows it, by leaving the howto question {see CPM 

section 3.3 [3]} to the implementors), but, IMHO, Jordi 

also failed to stick to only what was allowed 

by the PDP [3]. This is were what Fernando 

have tried to explain below is really relevant...i 

can also refer to more than two emails where 

Sunday is trying to enlightening that lack of PDP compliance. 

 

Some observations or facts to consider:

 

~°~

•1| First, the final action made [4] on tuesday by Jordi, 

on behalf of the PDWG is a good proof that if 

appropriately conducted, the consensus-driven 

mecanism can work very well in this AfriNIC's 

PDWG.

•2| The PDP is *sufficiently* clear about the emergency 

procedure to use when it comes to replacing 

the PDWG's Chair(s) before the end of mandate(s).

•3| The PDP is also clear (see CPM section 3.6 [5]) 

about who from the PDWG can varying the process 

(PDP) and in which kind of circonstances.

•4| This post-recall PDWG's Chairs time makes 

an interesting precedent to study and without 

at least one of its Chairs, the PDWG is leaved 

with no mean to varying the process by itself...

•5| ...within the CPM (version 1.6) [6] even a 

consensus reached by the PDWG during this 

emergency time *MUST* be bond to the few 

tasks allowed by the PDP (select the new PDWG's 

Chairs; then continue to follow the PDP)...we 

failed on it; then we are in violation to the actual PDP.

•6| Yes! by the PDP, this PDWG is allowed to do 

only very few things without its Chairs. Doing 

more than those things is a clear violation 

of the PDP.

•7| AfriNIC's BoD has its prerogatives and we are 

sure it shall act accordingly if we, PDWG, fail 

to enforce our PDP. Therefore there is no need 

to violate our own PDP to do something which 

will be surely do soon by the BoD. That's doing 

something of non incidence...

•8| With the new PDWG's Chairs in action, of course, 

the fact that the PDWG can not actually varying 

the process by itself (raise a problem) could 

be consider and therefore handled by proposing 

a DPP (Draft Policy Proposal) to change at least 

it for example...

•9| Jordi has proved a good ability to conduct 

the PDWG, he is therefore a proven-good candidate 

as a replacement PDWG's Chair, for us, IMHO.

10| Let's back to the PDP to do the only task 

we PDWG are allowed to do without our Chairs. 

Sunday, please can you handle the process 

to help the PDWG to enforce its PDP? 

~°~

 

...i want to call the PDWG once more [7], to firmly 

defend its PDP; because that is the most important 

thing to do, IMHO, during these difficult times.

 

If you see things differently, i look forward 

to reading you too! ;-)

 

Thanks & Blessed thursday!

__

[1]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/thread.html#12428>

[2]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>

[3]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG>

[4]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/012425.html>

[5]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#Varying-Process>

[6]: <https://afrinic.net/cpm-1-6>

[7]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/012358.html>

 

Shalom,

--sb.

Le mer. 17 févr. 2021 02:46, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a écrit :

Hello Gregoire

Well, the PDP makes it clear that is up to the WG to select the Co-Chairs, no one else (point 3.3). It doesn't have a fallback mechanism or even a point which allows the WG defer that decision to the Board.
This is different from when something is not mentioned at all and is considered not covered by current rules.

So anything different from what is in the PDP right now is a change in the PDP and a change in the PDP can only be done via the due process with rough consensus when we have new Co-Chairs in place. Even if the WG would decide unanimously right now to defer that decision it is something that cannot be done at the present because the current PDP as written forbids it having it clear the only way Co-Chairs can be chosen. 

I keep hoping the Board will organize the elections soon and we will be able to progress in this matter with the natural way which is the WG choosing.
Hope also in the next change we have to adjust the PDP we can include the possibility for the Board to be able to select temporary/interim Co-Chairs during unforeseen situation and it is in other RIRs.

Regards
Fernando

[...]

 




_______________________________________________
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 


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210219/ee74e460/attachment-0001.html>