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

[Daniel Yakmut]

Good morning Jordi,

Are you asking the board to suspend the cpm and every  other rule that
drives the PDP, by creating or enacting an interim byelaw?

What is so difficult in conducting an election. I remembered we did an
electronic voting recently. I see most of the suggestions presented in some
way or the other violates the cpm and the PDP.

Therefore, let us simply work with the fact that we don't have co-chairs,
let us forget any tenure completion, rather let us have co-chairs that are
starting a tenure afresh. This means constituting a nomcom, that will make
the necessary calls and conduct an election. Make the time shorter because
of the urgency.

I think we can suspend all actions for now, and sort this  matter first.

Simply
Daniel

On Feb 19, 2021 9:36 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

Hi Sunday,



The problem of making a selection in the PDWG in an open way, trying to
reach consensus is that:

   1. There is a high risk that you have more than 2 candidates.
   2. There is a risk of people not willing to “openly” support or object
   to the candidates.
   3. 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.

_______________________________________________
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/20210221/42e6b6e3/attachment-0001.html>