Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Co-Chair Recall Policy Proposal: Impact Assessment & Summary of Objections
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 02:18:03 UTC 2021
No way a Recall Committee to be elected by the PDWG. This sounds like a
quiet bad scenario and should be avoided given the way PDWG works.
Recall Committee is a rather critical thing in the structure of PDWG and
may only be called up during difficult and stressful times. If you add
up the possibility to politicize the process with candidates and an
election it a recipe to mess up the process with all that is involved in
a election. Further to that imagine the possibility of someone
economically powerful that is dissatisfied with some of the decision of
the Co-Chair to pay people to subscribe to list, fake participation and
vote for certain people for a 'ordered' Recall Committee to remove those
'unwanted' Co-Chairs ?
Having the Board to nominate the Committee is good enough and protects
these rather difficult and critical situations from unnecessary
politicization and the PDWG from a easier take over. I believe it is
quiet fair to think that the Board has all the necessary attributes to
find and choose the right people to compose a Recall Committee when it
is needed. We have a great example in the excellent and detailed work a
previous Recall Committee has done and those members were all chosen by
the Board. This shows the process worked well, fairly and in a balanced
way where the Board and Recall Committeed played its role in the balance
the PDWG has to have.
I consider this proposal unnecessary and has several points that don't
improve things much unfortunately and only make them a lot more complex
which could make the process completely unfeasible.
- Limiting to 1 time during the tenure of the PDWG Chairs doesn't make
much sense because during their term if they commit multiple and
different critical mistakes they should be called up as many times as
necessary given each event. Remember that the Board has the prerogative
to refuse to accept a request to form a Recall Commitee if it has no
substance, consistence or repeats stuff from previous requests that have
been already dismissed.
- Point E allied to point G seem to add a rather complex process that
plasters and prolongs the recall process with the timings imposed in
each event. These challenges are very likely to happen. This all can be
simplified and replaced by maximum time for the Board to re-consider its
decision so the nominated people can start to do their job without any
interference.
- Increasing the numbers of members to 7 is too much. The current 5
members if already good enough. The more people, more difficult to find
good standing people with no conflict of interest for such important task.
- Subject the report of the committee to the Board is unnecessary as
well. If the Board did its job well in choosing good people for the
Committee it should be enough for their decision to be final. Having the
Board to approve it as well introduced a kind of automatic appeal
process that will only prolong that whole process further.
- A final PDWG from the community to Recall the Co-Chair is I think that
worst thing to add up to this process and unnecessary. A fair amount of
work and checks have been done previously already and mainly as
mentioned above adding a vote to this process will only contribute to
mess up the whole thing by politicizing the process and open it to
economical powers that have interest in the removal of the Co-chairs. By
making it a 70% majority make it almost impossible to Recall bad
Co-Chairs imposing the community to have to stay in a really bad
scenario for the remainter of the term despite the detailed work the
Recall Committee have produced.
- Points K and L make it even more complex adding yet another point to
hold the process that should not be overly complex and impossible to be
accomplished.
Therefore I oppose this proposal.
Regards
Fernando
On 14/11/2021 18:58, Cheken Chetty wrote:
> Exactly.
>
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2021, 18:17 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> I would prefer to see the recall committee elected by the PDWG
> through an online voting process.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Nov 14, 2021, at 07:57, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa
>> <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello Cheken,
>> So who/how would you rather prefer in the appointment of the
>> Recall Committee?
>>
>> <.ta/>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2021 at 11:45 AM Cheken Chetty
>> <rameez.chetty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good day chairs, all,
>> I believe this policy leaves majority of the power and
>> authority with the board. The board getting to appoint the
>> Recall Committee is counter productive, it disregards the
>> bottom-up approach of AFRINIC by disregarding the community
>> participation in the process.
>> Regards
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, 17:44 PDWG Chair, <vincent at ngundi.me.ke>
>> wrote:
>>
>> **
>>
>> *Dear PDWG, *
>>
>> *
>>
>> We are pleased to announce that:-
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> The impact assessment of the policy proposal Co-chair
>> Recall, ID AFPUB-2020-GEN-007-DRAFT01 has been
>> published at
>> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-007-d1#impact.
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> The summary of the concerns/objections on this
>> proposal is at the link below:-
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qlRXUhVjsuxL9WYDsO8wWwk9MnKh-48kkbM6SiF0Wx8/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qlRXUhVjsuxL9WYDsO8wWwk9MnKh-48kkbM6SiF0Wx8/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>>
>> We request the authors to consider the pending
>> concerns/objections and that an update of their proposal
>> can be submitted until 10th November 2021 at 23h59.
>>
>>
>> We encourage the PDWG to discuss the merits of the policy
>> proposal by keeping this discussion thread using the
>> following guidelines :-
>>
>> 1.
>>
>> Do you agree with the problem statement and proposal
>> as written?
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> Have you encountered an issue similar to the problem
>> statement in the proposal?
>>
>> 3.
>>
>> Do you have any objections to the proposal as
>> written. If yes, please state the sections and
>> document your objections.
>>
>> 4.
>>
>> Are there any areas in the proposal that are
>> ambiguous? If yes, please provide the changes you
>> would like to propose.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
>>
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20211114/f216eba6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list