Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Eligibility Criteria for PDWG chairs
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Mon Mar 29 09:50:22 UTC 2021
In any elections process, it is up to the candidate to justify any criteria, so F should not be a problem.
Regarding G, there is no way in the PDP to have the co-chairs “temporarily-replaced” when judging their own proposals. There is no way they can be absolutely neutral (even the companion co-chair). Or even them to “abstain” on the consensus measurement on those policies (even if they withdraw from the proposals, they will still be biased), and a single co-chair judging consensus, in my opinion is not good/fair – that’s why we have 2.
Finally, on H. I think only in RIPE there is nothing stated about being from the region. All the other RIRs clearly state “from the region” (with different details such as living there for all the term, or only if born there, etc.). I’m not really worried about this, I’m not interested myself in being a co-chair, but I strongly believe that it should be competent people residing in the region at least when they are elected. I’m fine if for work or personal reasons they move outside the region afterwards if they keep doing the job (they will not be able to be candidates again in the next tenure, unless they are back residing in the region). I think it is a good balance to have people contributing from all the world, because that’s the definition of the PDWG (in all the RIRs), but also chairs from the region (which in any case, should absolutely respect neutrality and consensus process).
By the way, up to now, I’ve always said RIPE PDP was the best, etc., etc. (even if I mention it has some weak points) and supported it as an example. I’m clearly stating this here because I don’t think the RIPE case should be used anymore as a good example. I unfortunately recently discovered that it is not really an open, trustable and inclusive PDP. There is manipulation, there is discrimination. Some chairs that have stated opinions on policy proposals participate in the appeals instead of recusing themselves, also the appeals are handled by the chairs “collective” which means that there are no chances an appeal can be neutral. Chairs decide, even if is not stated in the PDP, if a proposal is accepted or not, so constituting a violation of the PDP. Then Task Forces are created excluding people even if the “call” for the participation was stating not a strict deadline, but instead a “please respond by” (even if the Task Force results only in 4 people), etc., etc. Not a matter of discussion here, just to be clear that even if it has good points and it is a good model “as a starting point”, it is highly discriminatory, and we must do it much better.
El 29/3/21 11:18, "Anthony Ubah" <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> escribió:
Proposed Eligibility Criteria
C. OK I think 2 Years is also acceptable
D. OK I think 2 Years is also acceptable
F. NOK (How can 3 Years of technical experience be measured? Can a member who is an academic count none-industry years spent in studies and research as technical experience. If not, does that count for nothing?)
G. NOK (I feel it is unnecessary to restrict Authors of pending policies. Since these authors aren’t solely responsible for the reasons why their policy(s) have stayed under review through the duration, I think they shouldn’t be forbidden from running. We all know certain proposal have been under scrutiny by the PDWG for over 2 years. Such policies can be addressed separately)
H. NOK (Some community members who neither “reside within” nor “originate from AFRINIC’s service region” actively participate in the community, and they have been allowed to propose policies (to help the region), and these policies are also accepted and implemented. I suggest their candidacy should also be accepted in the same vane, and they should be allowed to run if they so desire to, in good faith)
I. OK (What metrics can be used to evaluate this?)
In summary, I think the guideline in the PDWG election process for eligibility criteria should be followed, until a proposal with a different guiding protocol is approved instructing the community to do otherwise. Since there is an existing protocol, let us stick to it.
According to this guide https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group?lang=en-GB#election
3) Candidate Eligibility
The candidate must:
• Be a natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC service region.
• Not be a staff of AFRINIC or any other Regional Internet Registry (RIR).
Why do we insist on straying?
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 6:22 PM Madhvi Gokool <madhvi at afrinic.net> wrote:
I submit to you the below proposed eligibility criteria which are based upon the previous discussions on the rpd mailing list.
We encourage you to follow the following guidelines to facilitate the compilation of your feedback:-
1. Please read and thoroughly review the list of eligibility criteria.
2. Please reply back to this email to keep the same thread of the discussion to ensure that your feedback is read.
3. If there are any criteria that you either support or do not support, please clearly refer to it and provide concise feedback (refer to the numbering in the list below).
4. If there are new criteria that you would like to propose, please clearly mention it concisely and add a new numbering.
Proposed Eligibility Criteria
A. The intended volunteer must be well conversant with AFRINIC’s consensus-driven ecosystem, including its Policy Development Process; A practical understanding of RFC 7282 is required.
B. The intended volunteer must be accessible and make himself or herself available to follow and moderate all policy proposal discussions on AFRINIC’s rpd mailing list as well as attending AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings whenever they are held (Note: All logistical assistance will be provided by AFRINIC);
C. The intended volunteer must have at least 3 years of sufficient past and active participative experience on either AFRINIC’s or any other RIR’s rpd mailing list;
D. The Intended volunteer must have participated in at least two (2) AFRINIC events (face-to-face or virtual) in the past three (3) years;
E. The intended volunteer must have sufficient capability of understanding and interpreting the contents of AFRINIC’s Consolidated Policy Manual;
F. The intended volunteer must be able to demonstrate good technical knowledge and understanding of the Internet ecosystem. Having 3 years of related technical experience would be an advantage
G. Not being author of any of the policy proposals currently under discussion.
The following are proposals not in the discussion threads :
H)The intended volunteer must either reside within or originate from AFRINIC’s service region;
I) The intended volunteer must be able to demonstrate excellent presentation and communication skills.
We look forward to receiving your comments and feedback.
Je vous communique les critères d'éligibilité proposés ci-dessous, qui sont basés sur les discussions précédentes sur la liste de diffusion rpd.
Nous vous encourageons à suivre les directives suivantes afin de faciliter la compilation de vos commentaires :-
1. Veuillez lire et examiner attentivement la liste des critères d'éligibilité.
2. Veuillez répondre à ce courriel afin de conserver le même fil de discussion et de vous assurer que vos commentaires sont lus.
3. S'il y a des critères que vous soutenez ou non, veuillez y faire clairement référence et fournir un retour d'information concis (veuillez vous référer à la numérotation dans la liste ci-dessous).
4. S'il y a de nouveaux critères que vous souhaitez proposer, veuillez le mentionner clairement et de manière concise et ajouter une nouvelle numérotation.
Critères d'éligibilité proposés
A. Le volontaire concerné doit bien connaître l'écosystème consensuel d'AFRINIC, y compris son processus d'élaboration des politiques. Une compréhension pratique du RFC 7282 est requise.
B. Le volontaire concerné doit être accessible et se rendre disponible pour suivre et modérer toutes les discussions sur les propositions de politique sur la liste de diffusion rpd d'AFRINIC, ainsi que pour assister aux réunions de politique publique d'AFRINIC lorsqu'elles ont lieu (Note : Toute l'assistance logistique sera fournie par AFRINIC) ;
C. Le volontaire concerné doit avoir au moins 3 ans d'expérience suffisante et active de participation à la liste de diffusion rpd de l'AFRINIC ou de tout autre RIR ;
D. Le volontaire concerné doit avoir participé à au moins deux (2) événements AFRINIC (face à face ou virtuels) au cours des trois (3) dernières années ;
E. Le volontaire concerné doit avoir une capacité suffisante de compréhension et d'interprétation du contenu du Consolidated Policy Manual d'AFRINIC ;
F. Le volontaire concerné doit être capable de démontrer une bonne connaissance technique et une bonne compréhension de l'écosystème Internet. Une expérience technique de 3 ans dans ce domaine serait un avantage.
G. Ne doit pas être l'auteur de l'une des propositions de politique actuellement en discussion.
Les propositions suivantes ne figurent pas dans les fils de discussion :
H. Le volontaire concerné doit soit résider ou soit en être originaire de la région de service d'AFRINIC, ;
I. Le volontaire doit être capable de démontrer d'excellentes capacités de présentation et de communication.
Nous nous attendons à recevoir vos commentaires et feedbacks.
Senior IP Resources Specialist
t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 |
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
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...
More information about the RPD