Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Let us do the right thing
owen at delong.com
Mon May 23 18:59:15 UTC 2022
> On May 23, 2022, at 02:25 , Taiwo Oye <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Polite notice:
> I have missed some previous emails due to my schedule. This mail is written based on the information I have. I am opened to be directed aright.
> Dear all,
> Last year:
> There was an unexpected vacuum in the chairman position of the PDWG. This lead to a situation defined in section 3.6 of the CPM “varying the process” where laid down principles and guidelines can be distorted based on agreement of the WG.
> This variation gave birth to a brilliant matrix that brought about the selection of the current cochairs.
> To the best of my knowledge, this brilliant matrix wasn’t further discussed and made policy to stand the test of time. Therefore, the matrix should rightfully be trashed after that particular situation.
> This year:
> There is a vacuum in the sit of one of the cochairs. This is a normal situation, there is a laid down process for handling this situation. Why are we still using the trashed matrix (pardon my French)
> I think the right thing is
> - A policy be drafted and discussed to put this matrix to law. (I actually think this matrix is brilliant and will be willing to work with anyone interested to making it law)
A small nit… We cannot make law, we are not legislators. We can only make policy for AFRINIC. We are the AFRINIC PDWG.
That having been said, yes, if we wish to continue using this altered process in variation of section 3 of the CPM, we should codify it through the PDP and make it policy.
I have no strong opinion on the merits or lack thereof in doing so at this time.
> - according to guiding laid down procedures. I don’t think this matrix is allowed just yet as a means of selection, election or screening
Correct… Neither, for that matter, are the so-called consensus criteria which never actually went through the formal PDP to become new rules for screening candidates, nor the use of any sort of nominating committee for the PDWG co-chair position. None of this is covered in section 3.3 of the CPM which reads:
3.3 The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG)
The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses the proposals. Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person. PDWG work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net) and the bi-annual AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (PPM). Any person, participating either in person or remotely, is considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.
The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions. The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms. The term ends during the first Public Policy Meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they were appointed. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the Public Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the Public Policy Meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the current Chair and the new Chair.
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.
Please note that it does clearly state:
“The chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting”
This means that there is no validity to a restriction to nominations by registered contacts… Nomination and service as a co-chair is open to anyone the community chooses to select. The community must hold the broadest possible definition (essentially anyone with an email address who has subscribed to the RPD list and chooses to participate in the process of selecting co-chair(s) at a PPM.
The NomCom has no role as defined in section 3.3.
If we wish to change that, we must do so through the PDP.
I will also note that a careful reading of section 3.6:
3.6 Varying the Process
The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required.
• The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.
• There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.
• The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks.
• If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.
Makes it quite clear that this envisioned variances in the process leading to last call for policy proposals and not the electoral process for co-chair selection.
> - therefore. Ithink the NomCom, election committee and the entire afrinic community at large should do the right thing and prepare for a election between the four candidates in Mauritius.
> Ithink this is necessary to avoid a lawless system, set bad precedence and also avoid legal action against afrinic.
I think we must also avoid setting bad precedents (the plural of precedent).
I’m less worried about avoiding AFRINIC getting sued as AFRINIC has become quite adept at attracting lawsuits in any case.
I agree that we should return to conducting ourselves according to the bylaws and CPM and that failing to do so is an act of lawlessness which cannot be tolerated.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD