<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>It is perfectly fine to give the Board the duty to arbiter issues
on this process. As said before *this is always an exceptional*
situation and the PDP is strongly connected to membership. As the
Board members are elected in a well defined process and supposedly
have trust of majority of members is fair enough to let them
arbiter this scenario when needed. They are a well established
body and much less suggestible to external interference.<br>
Remember, their involvement is exceptional so there is not much to
worry about. And it works similar in other RIRs where, as
described by Jordi, the Board has different levels of involvement
when necessary.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/2019 17:52, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DE68A0FF-2D09-462B-A45D-78E6043F521E@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Nov 10, 2019, at 02:15 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">Hi
Andrew,<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US"><o:p
class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US"><o:p
class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt;
font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"
class="">El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston" <<a
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com"
style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>
escribió:<o:p class=""></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p
class=""> </o:p></div>
</div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US">Coupla comments on this one:</span><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" lang="EN-US">In
3.3:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></i></b><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="">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 class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class=""> </span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" 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 class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-indent: 0cm;"
class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family:
Wingdings;" class="" lang="EN-US"><span class="">è<span
style="font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal;
font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family:
"Times New Roman";" class=""> <span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span></span><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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 ?.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
I think that the situation where no co-chair attends the meeting
is rare and exceptional enough that using some time at the
meeting to nominate and elect a chair pro tem is a perfectly
valid solution and that any other solution presented so far is
problematic.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Also, assuming that we know before the meeting that the
co-chairs will be unable to attend is a perilous assumption to
build into the process, IMHO.</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" 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.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US">Should that not say they are
eligible after a minimum one-year pause? I presume
that’s a typo?</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US"><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">Yes,
definitively, word autocorrection made a trouble here!</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Personally, I am opposed to term limits. We have elections.
Co-Chairs are up for re-election no less than every two years.
If people want a new co-chair, they can easily vote for that.
Why deprive voters of choice? Do you not trust the electorate to
make good choices?</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" 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.</span></i></b><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" 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 class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">In 3.3.1,
we have:<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">“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
class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US"><o:p
class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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 …</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
I am very hesitant to open the can of worms wherein the board is
allowed to deem RPD co-chair candidates acceptable or not. Am I
the only one that sees this as a serious avenue for abuse of the
process to stack the deck on available candidates?</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""><br class="">
</span></div>
<div>My statement here in no way accuses or reflects on the
current AfriNIC board. It is a question of procedural abuse that
I would raise in any such construct regardless of the trust or
esteem I held for the board in question. These rules should be
intended to last well beyond the current board and must,
therefore, consider any possible board makeup.</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" 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.</span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" 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.</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US"><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="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.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
This is a _REALLY_ bad idea, IMHO. The board should not be
preemptively disqualifying candidates on judgment calls in lieu
of the judgment of the community.</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" 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.</span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" 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 class=""></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
No… The objections and the adjudication of those objections must
be public regardless of the outcome. To do otherwise creates a
significant potential for abuse of process. The objections
should not be anonymous and any anonymous objections should not
be mentioned. Whoever raises an objection should be identified
right along with said objection.</div>
<div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size:
11pt;" class=""> </span></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" 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.</span></i></b><o:p class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b
class=""><i class=""><span class="" lang="EN-US"> </span></i></b><o:p
class=""></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 35.4pt; font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
class="" 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.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
I agree here.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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?</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
The nomination committee is not what is being discussed in
3.3.2, so I am not sure how this comment applies to the
discussion above.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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?</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
You are proposing a new procedures document that will supersede
the existing one. As such, it should be mentioned here.</div>
<div><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif;" class=""> </span><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1;
caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;
font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span
style="font-size: 12pt;" class="" lang="EN-US">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 class="">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?”).</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Agreed, but the above 3.3.2 language puts the board as the final
and ultimate arbiter of the appeals process and that is not a
good idea.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><font class="" size="3" face="Calibri, sans-serif">Owen</font></div>
<div><font class="" size="3" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br
class="">
</font></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>
</body>
</html>