<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 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.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
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.EstiloCorreo18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EstiloCorreo19
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:72165641;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1912057934 560217024 67764227 67764229 67764225 67764227 67764229 67764225 67764227 67764229;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Andrew,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Coupla comments on this one:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In 3.3: </span></i></b><b><i><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;text-indent:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Wingdings'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>è<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I’m trying to avoid wasting time in the meeting. The idea is that this is done up-front the meeting, not during the policy session. I’m happy to change that to the nomination committee if you think that will resolve the issue. As I mention in my previous email, I didn’t want to use the committees references because those are called by the board, so it should be the board, if those committees exist, the one that delegate the functions. An alternative is to explicitly have some text in the policy that indicates that the board is that “top responsible, but it must delegate that functions thru a nomination committee”, without entering in this policy on the details of that committee. What do you think ?.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Should that not say they are eligible after a minimum one-year pause? I presume that’s a typo?</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Yes, definitively, word autocorrection made a trouble here!<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>In 3.3.1, we have:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>“In addition to the candidate’s biographical information, nominations must include specific information that allows assessing their contribution, participation and experience in the PDWG. The candidates must also provide information about what they will like to achieve during their term, possible improvements to the PDWG, etc.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>Because AFRINIC (board -> nomination committee) will check all the information, they will verify that the candidate has been there for 6 months, can be re-elected (if is the case), provide their biographical information and some statement about what they want to achieve. Only if all that has been provided, is an acceptable candidate. However, keep reading …<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If the board->nomination committee, receives any information that is relevant and confirmed (so not a “rumour”), it could be publish and any candidate be disqualified. Let me have an example. A candidate has been divorced 10 times. Is that relevant to the community? Clearly not. However, a candidate has been elected as the chair of an ISPs association and then has not followed his duties and this can be publicly confirmed (example, a press release from the association indicating that they fired its chair). Do you think the candidate is acceptable? The board can decide if publishing a link to the (already) public information, so the community knows when voting, or directly disqualify the candidate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>The statement doesn’t say that the board “can’t” publish the information. But I think those objections should only be publish if the candidate is disqualified because the objections have been proven.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><i><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language: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='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I’ve not read recently how the nomination committee is elected, and I think unless somebody raised problems on that, we should trust that is working. Otherwise, that requires a different policy or procedure, or the board addressing it. You don’t think so?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I’m with you that participants on the committees aren’t valid candidates, but is not that part already of those procedures, or should we mention it here?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>Similarly, I’m with you about the segregation of functions, but I already responded to this in a previous email, so not repeating it here. I also think that it is “easier” for the community if the board members do not participate in the discussions, *<b>however</b>* they have the full right to do so, as community members (as well as chairs), and the only requisite (as we do in IETF and all the other RIRs) is that if they express a personal opinion, they clearly say “hat off this is my personal view on this”, and this personal opinion is not used in a decision for ratifying or not a policy (ratification should be based on “has the process been followed? Has this policy a crazy impact on the membership and endangers this organization?”).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>I think I’ve explained all the points you raised, but I’m happy to heard explicit wording to provide more clarity. Suggestions?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Andrew</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> </span><o:p></o:p></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 style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd@afrinic.net> <br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 5 November 2019 17:04<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt'>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">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>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>