<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hi Fernando,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I clearly don't comprehend what the worry is? Has there been cases of monopoly, if so, can we establish the negative impact this has brought to the work group and community as a whole?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In my opinion I maintain my support for a free transparent system. This section of the proposed policy is simply not that. Let the best and most dedicated people vie for seats without being held back by a superficial clause. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">By the way, the questions Daniel asked is still begging for an answer. Are we trading competence for representation? <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ant</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 21:29 <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs<br>
Elections Process" (Fernando Frediani)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:28:35 -0300<br>
From: Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:<br>
"Chairs Elections Process"<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:02e9bc75-0dd9-50a7-f682-cdb75092048e@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">02e9bc75-0dd9-50a7-f682-cdb75092048e@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
Hello Anthony<br>
<br>
The point specifically about the Co-chairs be or not form the same <br>
country is a good practice to avoid monopolization from a single country.<br>
You are right that 'in theory' the only thing that should matter are the <br>
candidate requirements, but in practice it may lead to scenarios where <br>
there is a major participation of people from a specific country and <br>
they may vote for someone just because he/she is from the same country <br>
without knowing anything about the person.<br>
While I don't consider this a very critical thing as for example the 6 <br>
month period to be able to vote, I think it avoids that possibility I <br>
mentioned which is what is more likely to happen.<br>
<br>
Fernando<br>
<br>
On 12/11/2019 15:56, Anthony Ubah wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hello Jordie and Souad,<br>
><br>
> I?ve just gone through your proposal. Having once contested for a <br>
> chair as co-chair I quite recognize a need to revisit the election <br>
> process. However, I don?t agree with the crust of this proposal.<br>
><br>
> The stated problem being addressed (below) is accurate, nevertheless <br>
> personally I find that several areas are debatable, t?s as evident in <br>
> the views on the mail trails so far.<br>
><br>
> *?The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses very briefly <br>
> how the chairs are chosen. However, there is not sufficient detail <br>
> about the candidate requirements, neither a complete process.?*<br>
><br>
> Most observations I have made have already been brought previously <br>
> highlighted and brought forward by other members of the community, and <br>
> I see that you(Jordi) have painstakingly tried to address a few of <br>
> them, but I will still want to reiterate a few of mine.<br>
><br>
> From section 3.3.1<br>
><br>
> *? Both chairs can?t be from the same country,*<br>
><br>
> *except in exceptional situations where there are*<br>
><br>
> *no other acceptable candidates, in which case one*<br>
><br>
> *of the chairs will cease in their position at the*<br>
><br>
> *following election process (following year), either*<br>
><br>
> *because their term has come to an end or by*<br>
><br>
> *agreement among the two chairs, failing which*<br>
><br>
> *the chair who has held the position the longest*<br>
><br>
> *will automatically cease in their position*<br>
><br>
> Ant: I am an advocate for freedom and transparency, thus I strongly <br>
> disagree with any form of restrictions due to the country of origin or <br>
> resident of the co-chairs. Nomination and election should be a matter <br>
> of substance. Like Daniel said */?Else we may be trading competency <br>
> for representative?/*. The focus should be on the candidates? <br>
> competence and motivation.<br>
><br>
> From Section 3.3.2<br>
><br>
> *3.3.2 About the election of the Chairs*<br>
><br>
> *? Voting will be conducted electronically, using*<br>
><br>
> *mechanisms to ensure, as much as possible, that*<br>
><br>
> *each voter can cast only one vote.*<br>
><br>
> Ant:<br>
><br>
> 1.Through what electronic means?<br>
><br>
> 2.Solely remote voting? When can the community meet and interact with <br>
> the candidates, or do we rely solely on credentials and public <br>
> opinions? If so, then what is the need for waiting till the next PPM? <br>
> Run an election, conclude and announce results on online.<br>
><br>
> 3.How can voters be identified for transparency in eligibility and <br>
> vote counting?<br>
><br>
> 4.What mechanism is put in place to detect multiple accounts run by <br>
> one person? Because we might be an advent of a scenario of account <br>
> squatting for voting purposes. Where one person will register multiple <br>
> dummy accounts in anticipation of election time.<br>
><br>
> 5.How can off-net collusion be detected?<br>
><br>
> *? Anyone who has been part of the RPD List for at*<br>
><br>
> *least 6 months prior to the start of the election*<br>
><br>
> *process may participate.*<br>
><br>
> Ant: Fair<br>
><br>
> *? Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even*<br>
><br>
> *when by persons clearly supportive of a*<br>
><br>
> *candidate, may result in their disqualification, if*<br>
><br>
> *there is evidence of collusion.*<br>
><br>
> Ant: This is controversial. A member can disenfranchise a candidate by <br>
> running a pseudo campaign in his favour, just to have that candidate <br>
> or both disqualified in favour of another. Simply put, one less voter <br>
> for one less Candidate. Very unbalanced.<br>
><br>
> **<br>
><br>
> *? AFRINIC will communicate the names of*<br>
><br>
> *Acceptable candidates to the RPD List,*<br>
><br>
> *announcing where candidate information will be *<br>
><br>
> *published.*<br>
><br>
> The term acceptable candidate reflects in bullet point 3 of 3.3.1 and <br>
> bullet point 7 of 3.3.2. Are there separate criteria stipulated for <br>
> candidates to measure who fall within the ?acceptable? threshold, or <br>
> is it the same as voter eligibility as stated in bullet point 3 of <br>
> 3.3.2? If not, what other criteria do you recommend for eligibility?<br>
><br>
> **<br>
><br>
> *? A period of 10 calendar days will then begin*<br>
><br>
> *during which the community will be able to*<br>
><br>
> *contribute relevant information on the candidates.*<br>
><br>
> *This information, if confirmed, may be published*<br>
><br>
> *simultaneously for all candidates on the first*<br>
><br>
> *working day following the end of the 10-day*<br>
><br>
> *period. As a result of that information, the Board*<br>
><br>
> *could disqualify any candidate.*<br>
><br>
> Ant: Quite Ambiguous. Kindly rephrase.<br>
><br>
> *? Voting will begin on the first working Monday*<br>
><br>
> *after the period specified above and will remain*<br>
><br>
> *open for 7 calendar days*.<br>
><br>
> Ant: When can the community meet and interact with the candidates?<br>
><br>
> *? If any objections are raised by a member of the*<br>
><br>
> *community, such objections must be*<br>
><br>
> *communicated to the Board within 7 calendar*<br>
><br>
> *days of the announcement of the results. The*<br>
><br>
> *Board will then assess whether such objections*<br>
><br>
> *are significant and have been proven. If no*<br>
><br>
> *objections are raised, or if those aren?t*<br>
><br>
> *considered, will proceed to ratify the winning*<br>
><br>
> *candidate.*<br>
><br>
> Ant: As I said before, I am an advocate of a transparent system. I <br>
> think narrowing a lot of things down to the Board is a way for locking <br>
> the larger community away from critical decisions.<br>
><br>
> Drifting off a bit to the second trail on the subject matter. The <br>
> existing election process might not be perfect, but the influence of <br>
> the local community should not be frowned at. The community is <br>
> encouraged to grow, and there is no better opportunity to do that than <br>
> by driving active participation of the host community as was witnessed <br>
> in Kampala, where a lot of IT students participated actively throughout.<br>
><br>
> Curbing the local influence of the host country/?newcomer voter? in <br>
> the election process will achieve infinitesimal gain. Since the <br>
> Bi-annual PPM is shifted across regions it solves itself organically.<br>
><br>
> In conclusion, I think the intention of initiating this proposal is <br>
> very noble, but I would suggest a comprehensive review. It is not ready.<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
> Anthony<br>
><br>
> *Best Regards,*<br>
><br>
> *UBAH ANTHONY **IKECHUKWU ***<br>
><br>
> Goldspine Nigeria<br>
><br>
> E-mail: <a href="mailto:anthony.ubah@goldspine.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">anthony.ubah@goldspine.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:anthony.ubah@gloworld.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">anthony.ubah@gloworld.com</a>>.ng<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:23 PM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>><br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a>><br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> ? ?1. Re: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Fernando Frediani)<br>
> ? ?2. Re: new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs<br>
> ? ? ? Elections Process" (Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:01:58 -0300<br>
> From: Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
><br>
> In practice this situation you describe is very hard to happen, we<br>
> cannot have things in place to treat the very unlikely situation and<br>
> that Phase 2 is about to happen soon. Until there the vast<br>
> majority or<br>
> organization (really the vast!) can get addresses from AfriNic fine.<br>
> I hardly doubt one can justify anything more than a /13 at once at<br>
> the<br>
> moment. Even in a remote hypothesis that is possible the organization<br>
> can receive the /13 and work with that until transfers are allowed as<br>
> per Jordi's proposal that has been changed to start with Phase 2 is<br>
> triggered and that organization will be able to transfer whatever<br>
> else<br>
> is needed.<br>
> One rule for all and much simpler.<br>
><br>
> Fernando<br>
><br>
> On 10/11/2019 18:51, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> On Nov 10, 2019, at 10:51 , Chevalier du Borg<br>
> <<a href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a>><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Le?dim. 10 nov. 2019 ??21:58, Jaco Kroon <<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jaco@uls.co.za</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jaco@uls.co.za</a>><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jaco@uls.co.za</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jaco@uls.co.za</a>>>> a ?crit?:<br>
> >><br>
> >>? ? ?Hi Chevalier.<br>
> >><br>
> >>? ? ?Please allow me to be blunt.? That's short sighted.<br>
> >><br>
> >>? ? ?We cannot transfer IN from other regions unless we allow OUT.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Agree 100%,<br>
> >> Then you have no problems with wait till all RIRs are equal run<br>
> out<br>
> >> before we etablish full in and out transfer policy no?<br>
> >><br>
> >>? ? ?All the other RIRs require reciprocal *compatible* policies,<br>
> >>? ? ?which means bi-directional transfers.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> All RIRs don't all have equal amount of free space. Big difference<br>
> ><br>
> > Depending on your definition here, 4 out of 5 have exactly equal<br>
> > amount == 0.<br>
> ><br>
> >>? ? ?Not allowing this means we can't get resources in either.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> While AfriNIC have free space, operators don't need it<br>
> >> When it run out, then we can allow transfer policy<br>
> ><br>
> > This isn?t entirely true.<br>
> ><br>
> > It?s possible that an operator needs more than they can get via<br>
> > current AfriNIC policies due to ?soft landing? limitations.<br>
> ><br>
> > In such a case, said operator might prefer to transfer a large<br>
> amount<br>
> > of space in even if they are paying for it on the market<br>
> > rather than suffer with the small amount of space they can get from<br>
> > AfriNIC due to the current restrictions.<br>
> ><br>
> > Is there a valid reason to preclude such a transfer which, in<br>
> reality,<br>
> > prolongs the AfriNIC free pool to the benefit of other<br>
> > organizations in Africa?<br>
> ><br>
> > Owen<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:<br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/6961beb6/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/6961beb6/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:22:39 +0000<br>
> From: Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>>><br>
> Cc: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:<br>
> ? ? ? ? "Chairs Elections Process"<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
> ? ? ? ?<br>
> <CAL_ZvK5xNb=<a href="mailto:LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com</a>>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
><br>
> Owen see reply in line below<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 9:03 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Nov 10, 2019, at 02:15 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Andrew,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston"<br>
> <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>><br>
> > escribi?:<br>
> ><br>
> > Coupla comments on this one:<br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3: **If both Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the<br>
> PPM, the<br>
> > Board will on-the-spot designate a nonconflictive Chair for the<br>
> session,<br>
> > that will be assisted by the staff*<br>
> ><br>
> > I don?t believe the board should designate, it should preferably<br>
> be an on<br>
> > the spot nomination and floor election by show of hands or other<br>
> mechanism<br>
> > at the meeting.? There has been and should remain separation<br>
> between the<br>
> > board and the PDP process ? since it is the boards duty to<br>
> ratify the<br>
> > process followed to declare consensus on any policy passed, and<br>
> hence,<br>
> > should a designate declare consensus on any policy, you create a<br>
> conflict<br>
> > of interest situation.<br>
> ><br>
> > ?? ? I?m trying to avoid wasting time in the meeting. The idea<br>
> is that<br>
> > this is done up-front the meeting, not during the policy<br>
> session. I?m happy<br>
> > to change that to the nomination committee if you think that<br>
> will resolve<br>
> > the issue. As I mention in my previous email, I didn?t want to<br>
> use the<br>
> > committees references because those are called by the board, so<br>
> it should<br>
> > be the board, if those committees exist, the one that delegate the<br>
> > functions. An alternative is to explicitly have some text in the<br>
> policy<br>
> > that indicates that the board is that ?top responsible, but it must<br>
> > delegate that functions thru a nomination committee?, without<br>
> entering in<br>
> > this policy on the details of that committee. What do you think ?.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I think that the situation where no co-chair attends the meeting<br>
> is rare<br>
> > and exceptional enough that using some time at the meeting to<br>
> nominate and<br>
> > elect a chair pro tem is a perfectly valid solution and that any<br>
> other<br>
> > solution presented so far is problematic.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also, assuming that we know before the meeting that the<br>
> co-chairs will be<br>
> > unable to attend is a perilous assumption to build into the<br>
> process, IMHO.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb : A clear example of what happened in Kampala where we had<br>
> only a<br>
> Co-chair supported by staff to chair a meeting. How will a single<br>
> co-chair<br>
> measure rough concensus?<br>
><br>
> What you can't predict is visa rejections or if there is a travel<br>
> ban on<br>
> the country that one of the co-chair is from.<br>
> Imagine a scenario where the two co-chairs are from the same<br>
> country as<br>
> canvassed by some members on this list, what happens at that PDP<br>
> meeting<br>
> when any or both of them suffers visa rejection or there is a<br>
> civil unrest<br>
> in that country leading to travel ban?<br>
><br>
> We should in most case see the call to even ensure that no two<br>
> Co-chair<br>
> emanate from the same country to reduce the risk exposure of the<br>
> PDPWG and<br>
> uneventful scenarios like that.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.1 Bullet point 6: PDWG Chairs will each serve staggered<br>
> two-year<br>
> > terms. PDWG Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive<br>
> term but are<br>
> > illegible to run again after a minimum one-year pause. *<br>
> ><br>
> > Should that not say they are eligible after a minimum one-year<br>
> pause?? I<br>
> > presume that?s a typo?<br>
> ><br>
> > Yes, definitively, word autocorrection made a trouble here!<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Personally, I am opposed to term limits. We have elections.<br>
> Co-Chairs are<br>
> > up for re-election no less than every two years. If people want<br>
> a new<br>
> > co-chair, they can easily vote for that. Why deprive voters of<br>
> choice? Do<br>
> > you not trust the electorate to make good choices?<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb: I do see a valid point of of argument here and I'm sure the<br>
> co-authors have taking note of your point.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet point 7: AFRINIC will communicate the names of<br>
> acceptable<br>
> > candidates to the RPD List, announcing where candidate<br>
> information will be<br>
> > published.*<br>
> ><br>
> > This is ambiguous in my view point ? you state in bullet point 3<br>
> of the<br>
> > same section that anyone who has been part of the RPD list for a<br>
> minimum of<br>
> > 6 months may participate, in section 3.3.1 you specify a one<br>
> year minimum<br>
> > pause ? but beyond that ? what does acceptable mean? This needs<br>
> some kind<br>
> > of definition ? and I?d be quite happy to say explicitly that if<br>
> those 2<br>
> > criteria are met, they are eligible and then let the community<br>
> decide, but<br>
> > if it does mean more than that, it needs less ambiguity.<br>
> ><br>
> > In 3.3.1, we have:<br>
> > ?In addition to the candidate?s biographical information,<br>
> nominations must<br>
> > include specific information that allows assessing their<br>
> contribution,<br>
> > participation and experience in the PDWG. The candidates must<br>
> also provide<br>
> > information about what they will like to achieve during their term,<br>
> > possible improvements to the PDWG, etc.?<br>
> ><br>
> > Because AFRINIC (board -> nomination committee) will check all the<br>
> > information, they will verify that the candidate has been there<br>
> for 6<br>
> > months, can be re-elected (if is the case), provide their<br>
> biographical<br>
> > information and some statement about what they want to achieve.<br>
> Only if all<br>
> > that has been provided, is an acceptable candidate. However,<br>
> keep reading ?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I am very hesitant to open the can of worms wherein the board is<br>
> allowed<br>
> > to deem RPD co-chair candidates acceptable or not. Am I the only<br>
> one that<br>
> > sees this as a serious avenue for abuse of the process to stack<br>
> the deck on<br>
> > available candidates?<br>
> ><br>
> > My statement here in no way accuses or reflects on the current<br>
> AfriNIC<br>
> > board. It is a question of procedural abuse that I would raise<br>
> in any such<br>
> > construct regardless of the trust or esteem I held for the board in<br>
> > question. These rules should be intended to last well beyond the<br>
> current<br>
> > board and must, therefore, consider any possible board makeup.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet Point 8: A period of 10 calendar days will then<br>
> begin<br>
> > during which the community will be able to contribute relevant<br>
> information<br>
> > on the candidates. This information, if confirmed, may be published<br>
> > simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day<br>
> following the<br>
> > end of the 10-day period. As a result of that information, the<br>
> Board could<br>
> > disqualify any candidate.*<br>
> ><br>
> > This represents a big problem to me.? It states as a result of the<br>
> > information the board may disqualify any candidate. This is wide<br>
> open and<br>
> > allows the arbitrary disqualification of candidates. If someone<br>
> is to be<br>
> > disqualified, it should be on the grounds of not meeting a<br>
> defined set of<br>
> > acceptable criteria ? that are published and known and codified<br>
> in policy.<br>
> > Anything else could result in similar conflict of interest to that<br>
> > mentioned in the first point in this email.<br>
> ><br>
> > If the board->nomination committee, receives any information that is<br>
> > relevant and confirmed (so not a ?rumour?), it could be publish<br>
> and any<br>
> > candidate be disqualified. Let me have an example. A candidate<br>
> has been<br>
> > divorced 10 times. Is that relevant to the community? Clearly<br>
> not. However,<br>
> > a candidate has been elected as the chair of an ISPs association<br>
> and then<br>
> > has not followed his duties and this can be publicly confirmed<br>
> (example, a<br>
> > press release from the association indicating that they fired<br>
> its chair).<br>
> > Do you think the candidate is acceptable? The board can decide if<br>
> > publishing a link to the (already) public information, so the<br>
> community<br>
> > knows when voting, or directly disqualify the candidate.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > This is a _REALLY_ bad idea, IMHO. The board should not be<br>
> preemptively<br>
> > disqualifying candidates on judgment calls in lieu of the<br>
> judgment of the<br>
> > community.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb:The last i checked, there are election and nomination<br>
> committees with<br>
> just a board representative.<br>
><br>
> The process I think allows for an open call for Expression of<br>
> Interest for<br>
> anyone who wants to participate in that committee which is<br>
> independent of<br>
> the board but has a board representation in that committee that<br>
> provides<br>
> guidance and also give feedback to the board.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet point 9: If any objections are raised by a<br>
> member of the<br>
> > community, such objections must be communicated to the Board<br>
> within 7<br>
> > calendar days of the announcement of the results. The Board will<br>
> then<br>
> > assess whether such objections are significant and have been<br>
> proven. If no<br>
> > objections are raised, or if those aren?t considered, will<br>
> proceed to<br>
> > ratify the winning candidate.*<br>
> ><br>
> > I would prefer this be done in a more open manner. That is to<br>
> say that if<br>
> > an objection is raised, the objection and the consideration<br>
> thereof should<br>
> > be made public.? The community should be able to see the<br>
> objections and why<br>
> > they were adjudicated in a particular manner.<br>
> ><br>
> > The statement doesn?t say that the board ?can?t? publish the<br>
> information.<br>
> > But I think those objections should only be publish if the<br>
> candidate is<br>
> > disqualified because the objections have been proven.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> Caleb : I think the lexicon use of board as against the Nomination &<br>
> Elections Committee can serve as an alternative.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > No? The objections and the adjudication of those objections must<br>
> be public<br>
> > regardless of the outcome. To do otherwise creates a significant<br>
> potential<br>
> > for abuse of process. The objections should not be anonymous and any<br>
> > anonymous objections should not be mentioned. Whoever raises an<br>
> objection<br>
> > should be identified right along with said objection.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 final point: The Board is the highest instance of<br>
> appeal in<br>
> > matters relating to the election process. The board may delegate<br>
> some or<br>
> > all of the required functions into the Election and Nomination<br>
> Committees.*<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Caleb : A suggestion here for governance Committee will be<br>
> appropriate.<br>
><br>
> > I would prefer this be handled by an appeal committee appointed<br>
> outside of<br>
> > the electoral process, and whose members are ineligible for<br>
> participation<br>
> > in the main election.? Again, I do not believe that the board<br>
> should be<br>
> > involved in the functioning of the PDP since it is they that<br>
> have to ratify<br>
> > policy that comes through the process.? Hence, as per a few of<br>
> my other<br>
> > points ? I would prefer clear segregation.? While I acknowledge<br>
> and fully<br>
> > agree that a board member, in his personal capacity, has every<br>
> right to<br>
> > participate in discussions around a policy ? since board members are<br>
> > naturally members of the community, I do not believe that they<br>
> should hold<br>
> > a position to influence anything in the election of a candidate.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I agree here.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I?ve not read recently how the nomination committee is elected,<br>
> and I<br>
> > think unless somebody raised problems on that, we should trust<br>
> that is<br>
> > working. Otherwise, that requires a different policy or<br>
> procedure, or the<br>
> > board addressing it. You don?t think so?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > The nomination committee is not what is being discussed in<br>
> 3.3.2, so I am<br>
> > not sure how this comment applies to the discussion above.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I?m with you that participants on the committees aren?t valid<br>
> candidates,<br>
> > but is not that part already of those procedures, or should we<br>
> mention it<br>
> > here?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > You are proposing a new procedures document that will supersede the<br>
> > existing one. As such, it should be mentioned here.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Similarly, I?m with you about the segregation of functions, but<br>
> I already<br>
> > responded to this in a previous email, so not repeating it here.<br>
> I also<br>
> > think that it is ?easier? for the community if the board members<br>
> do not<br>
> > participate in the discussions, **however** they have the full<br>
> right to<br>
> > do so, as community members (as well as chairs), and the only<br>
> requisite (as<br>
> > we do in IETF and all the other RIRs) is that if they express a<br>
> personal<br>
> > opinion, they clearly say ?hat off this is my personal view on<br>
> this?, and<br>
> > this personal opinion is not used in a decision for ratifying or<br>
> not a<br>
> > policy (ratification should be based on ?has the process been<br>
> followed? Has<br>
> > this policy a crazy impact on the membership and endangers this<br>
> > organization??).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Agreed, but the above 3.3.2 language puts the board as the final and<br>
> > ultimate arbiter of the appeals process and that is not a good idea.<br>
> ><br>
> > Owen<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> Caleb Ogundele<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> ><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:<br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/68602c38/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/68602c38/attachment.html</a>><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 56<br>
> ************************************<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191112/98b5b137/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191112/98b5b137/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 72<br>
************************************<br>
</blockquote></div></div>