<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Could you please quote specifically the RIRs where the involvement of the board in the PDP is the norm? And in specifying those RIRs, it might be helpful to compare their policy development processes and governance structures with those at AFRINIC. <div><br></div><div>My take is that AFRINIC’s board (composition, function and participation of the electorate) is just beginning to find its footing and we shouldn’t shackle the bottom-up policy development process to it just yet.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Dewole. <br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sent <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">with thumbs f</span>rom a mobile device. Pelase exsuce typos adn errosr. </div><div dir="ltr"><br>Le 9 nov. 2019 à 06:46, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>It is quiet common Board to be involved in the PDP and they are
only on exceptional situations as described in the proposal. This
is like that in other RIRs too.<br>
I find this is the best model the situation board gets involved
and it works well when needed.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/11/2019 02:19, Andrew Alston
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:DBBPR03MB541527E6C69EB775B86BCA61EE7A0@DBBPR03MB5415.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Coupla comments on this one:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3:
</span></i></b><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="en-KE">If both
Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the PPM, the
Board will on-the-spot designate a nonconflictive Chair
for the session, that will be assisted by the staff<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="en-KE"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">I don’t believe the board should designate, it
should preferably be an on the spot nomination and floor
election by show of hands or other mechanism at the
meeting. There has been and should remain separation
between the board and the PDP process – since it is the
boards duty to ratify the process followed to declare
consensus on any policy passed, and hence, should a
designate declare consensus on any policy, you create a
conflict of interest situation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.1
Bullet point 6: PDWG Chairs will each serve staggered
two-year terms. PDWG Chairs may only be re-elected for
one consecutive term but are illegible to run again
after a minimum one-year pause. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><u><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Should that not say they are eligible after a
minimum one-year pause? I presume that’s a typo?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.2
Bullet point 7: AFRINIC will communicate the names of
acceptable candidates to the RPD List, announcing where
candidate information will be published.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">This is ambiguous in my view point – you state
in bullet point 3 of the same section that anyone who has
been part of the RPD list for a minimum of 6 months may
participate, in section 3.3.1 you specify a one year minimum
pause – but beyond that – what does acceptable mean? This
needs some kind of definition – and I’d be quite happy to
say explicitly that if those 2 criteria are met, they are
eligible and then let the community decide, but if it does
mean more than that, it needs less ambiguity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.2
Bullet Point 8: A period of 10 calendar days will then
begin during which the community will be able to
contribute relevant information on the candidates. This
information, if confirmed, may be published
simultaneously for all candidates on the first working
day following the end of the 10-day period. As a result
of that information, the Board could disqualify any
candidate.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">This represents a big problem to me. It states
as a result of the information the board may disqualify any
candidate. This is wide open and allows the arbitrary
disqualification of candidates. If someone is to be
disqualified, it should be on the grounds of not meeting a
defined set of acceptable criteria – that are published and
known and codified in policy. Anything else could result in
similar conflict of interest to that mentioned in the first
point in this email.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.2
Bullet point 9: If any objections are raised by a member
of the community, such objections must be communicated
to the Board within 7 calendar days of the announcement
of the results. The Board will then assess whether such
objections are significant and have been proven. If no
objections are raised, or if those aren’t considered,
will proceed to ratify the winning candidate.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">I would prefer this be done in a more open
manner. That is to say that if an objection is raised, the
objection and the consideration thereof should be made
public. The community should be able to see the objections
and why they were adjudicated in a particular manner.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.2
final point: The Board is the highest instance of appeal
in matters relating to the election process. The board
may delegate some or all of the required functions into
the Election and Nomination Committees.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">I would prefer this be handled by an appeal
committee appointed outside of the electoral process, and
whose members are ineligible for participation in the main
election. Again, I do not believe that the board should be
involved in the functioning of the PDP since it is they that
have to ratify policy that comes through the process.
Hence, as per a few of my other points – I would prefer
clear segregation. While I acknowledge and fully agree that
a board member, in his personal capacity, has every right to
participate in discussions around a policy – since board
members are naturally members of the community, I do not
believe that they should hold a position to influence
anything in the election of a candidate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="en-KE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US" lang="en-KE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm
0cm 0cm 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US"> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 5 November 2019 17:04<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [rpd] new policy proposal:
AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi all,<br>
<br>
As with the previous ones, I'm attaching our proposal PDF,
already submitted, so the community can start commenting in
case the publication by AFRINIC is delayed.<br>
<br>
Thanks in advance for any inputs!<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>RPD mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>