[rpd] Co-Chair Recall Policy Proposal: Impact Assessment & Summary of Objections

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 15, 2021, at 18:01 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 15/11/2021 19:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> <clip>
>> 
>> If you don’t like the election, how about having all community members willing to serve on the committee toss their names in a hat and 5 names are selected at random.
> Functions of the PDWG should not be a lucky contest where any random people can perform a role.
> Instead people should be chosen by their competence and knowledge to the task and not all community members may have this necessary knowledge and skills. Put on the top of that that a random person with a big conflict of interest may be can be drawn which puts in danger a vital part of the PDWG.
> 

A person with a big CoI may be chosen by the board, too. The only way to handle CoI is to have rules about it and then hope people are honest about their disclosures of same.

> The way it is at least remains in the hands of the Board supported by the staff the function to filter and make sure only those who have the skills and no conflict of interest can perform such task.
> 
Since the board is the final arbiter of policy adoption (or not), the board has an inherent CoI in the process.

Especially given the way they’ve put their thumbs on the scale with the appeal committee recently, we need to be giving the board less, not more power in the PDP/PDWG process(es).

Owen

> Regards
> Fernando
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> Fernando
>>> 
>>> On 15/11/2021 15:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2021, at 05:33, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, I am considering it to be elected even before a request for recall is put.
>>>>> Election for such thing only has the potential to mess up things a lot and is uncessary.
>>>> 
>>>> How so?  If the committee is elected before the co-chairs are identified, how does it mess things up?
>>>> 
>>>>> The actual method with the Board playing the role in choosing these people to conduct this important task is good and balanced enough for the process.
>>>> 
>>>> This presumes we can depend on the board acting in good faith and not appointing committee members based on their willingness to achieve the board’s desired outcome. Given that there is a clear track record of increasing power grabs (e.g. the restructuring of the appeal committee TOR) in the PDP from the AFRINIC board, this is obviously folly. 
>>>> 
>>>>> As a comparison there are other RIRs like LACNIC where this works similarily and well.
>>>> 
>>>> The LACNIC board has and has earned the trust of the community. 
>>>> 
>>>>> Let's not politicize the process which should be based in merit and not popularity and imune to economical power interference.
>>>> 
>>>> Giving control of the process to the board will politicize it. The question is whether we want to politicize it in the control of 9 people or handle it with broader community oversight. 
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Fernando
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, 07:12 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 14, 2021, at 18:18 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> They should be elected to serve terms in case a recall comes up. They should not be elected after the recall process has begun.
>>>>>> 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 ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> It sounds like you are assuming an election to take place after the recall process is started. That would, indeed, be obvious folly, but it is not what I am proposing.
>>>>>> 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 disagree… This is a place where we should not be allowing the bard to put their thumbs on the scale, let alone encouraging it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20211116/c8e8696f/attachment.html>