<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/07/2020 13:39, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><clip>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</div>
This is an absurd claim. The standard (as you mention below) is
a “raise of hands” vote. This mechanism even in person does not
allow people to verify that their vote was cast correctly, nor
is it fully auditable (indeed, it has no audit trail and is not
at all audible).</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Placing more stringent requirements than exist on the current
system as an acceptance criteria for a system deployed urgently
in a time of crisis makes little sense to me.</div>
</blockquote>
You are not making the things easier given the circumstances and all
has been been discussed here.<br>
What is being said is analogous to raise of hand and is also a
indisputable way to eliminate most possible fraud that have been
pointed.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">4 - In order to either choose another Co-Chair
or to extend the current one term there must be a vote
with raise of hands. There is no other way out of the
PDP this can be done.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
This statement ignores CPM section 3.6:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
0px;" class="">
<div>
<h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: "Open
Sans", sans-serif; font-weight: normal; line-height:
1.1; color: rgb(117, 117, 117); margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 10px; font-size: 24px; caret-color: rgb(117,
117, 117);" class="">3.6 Varying the Process</h3>
</div>
<div>
<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 5px;
caret-color: rgb(117, 117, 117); color: rgb(117, 117, 117);
font-family: Roboto, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="">The
process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an
emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of
some provision of this document is required.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<ol style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 10px; caret-color: rgb(117, 117, 117); color:
rgb(117, 117, 117); font-family: Roboto, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px;" class="">
<ol class="">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">The decision to
vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">There must be
an explanation about why the variance is needed.</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">The review
period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than
four weeks.</li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box;" class="">If there is
consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented
at the next Public Policy Meeting.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<div><br class="">
</div>
Clearly this is the kind of exceptional circumstance in which
some variance could be justified.</div>
</blockquote>
Sorry I don't see 3.6 applying to this situation on *any* of points
mentioned. This section is about how the policies discussion,
review, last call, etc work 1) As I understand this decision is not
up to the Chairs to take 2)Yes, we are working on the explanation,
but who will give it ? Normally is whoever take the decision. 3)
Nothing to do with elections 4) Nothing to do with the current
scenario. There is no proper policy under discussion to be approved,
only a discussion of what to do about the next elections.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>I still say that a (virtual) raising of hands using the
mechanisms available in nearly every conferencing system capable
of supporting</div>
<div>this meeting has the following advantages:</div>
<div>q<br class="">
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Only
meeting attendees may vote.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Botting
your meeting attendance would be reasonably difficult, so it
would be difficult for a person to stuff the ballot box.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It
does meet the literal requirements of the existing PDP.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If
we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we can avoid
the so-called “sleeper cell” effect that some have</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>put
forth as a concern. (Personally, I think this is less likely in
a virtual meeting anyway).</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If
we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we also
manage to prevent (2) from being a concern.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>6.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>By
“reasonable bounds”, I mean pick a date certain in the past by
which one must have been subscribed to RPD.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Each
email subscribed to RPD is entitled to one corresponding meeting
registration if they choose to. No subscribed</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>email,
no registration for the meeting.</div>
</blockquote>
I quiet like this idea, and that is exactly which is under
discussion in one of the policies that should advance, but this is
not backed in any part of PDP as far as I know as the moment. Who
will determine what date is this ?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com">
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>7.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>My
suggestions for the date certain would be the first day of the
originally scheduled in person AIS 2020 (May 31) or</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>the
originally scheduled first day of the public policy meeting
(June 8 IIRC).</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This would make sense if there was basis for it, but currently
there is AFAIK.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>If anyone has a reason they don’t think this is viable,
please express it. So far, I’ve seen lots of calls for other
solutions, but this</div>
<div>seems to be the approach with the fewest drawbacks and which
can easily be implemented in time.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">Regards<br class="">
Fernando</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/07/2020 03:06, Daniel
Yakmut wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAB3X6meTt=Pw8az5fmYeO6vaSiNOLL8pkG91YuBemSAjFWiwOw@mail.gmail.com"
class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">Dear All,
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">We arrive at the airport and
I will be turning the simple matter placed on the
table into a circus. The simple matter was:</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">1. We will have AIS 2020
online and in September.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">2. A Co-chair's tenure has
already ended. So an electronic election is being
proposed as part of the AIS 2020 Agenda. The
question is, is this possible?</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">3. It is a fact that the
Co-chair is currently serving within an extended
period. </div>
<div dir="auto" class="">4. We now agree that the
introduction of e-voting is inevitable, as
demonstrated by the pandemic.</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">However it is clear that</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">1. We are going to have an
online meeting , as nobody has disagreed to that.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">2. There is a strong
advocacy, for a process to include e-voting in the
Region, but the timing is short. Therefore we need
to commence the plan of creating an enabling
atmosphere to integrate e-voting.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">3. We need to ratify the
extended period for a co-chair tentatively for
12months. Which he has spent a month or so already.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">4. Ensure we have an
acceptable e-voting system ready for the next date
of election.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">5. Let agreed clearly on this
simple issue and prepare for the coming meeting.</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Simply</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Daniel</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 19, 2020 11:20 PM,
"Fernando Frediani" <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution" class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div class="">I have read this message and
several questions come to mind as for example:</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">- What basis was used
to say "it was overwhelmingly" rejected ?</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">- Who actuallty
represents the "current" community to state it
was "totally rejected" ?</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">- Whats basis was used
to say that it would not work in the region if
that works in several other places and RIRs
including, with auditable systems ?</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">- Whats basis is used
to say rhe community that voted for the
current Co-Chair in Kampla has the same
confidence in him and that he would win ? It
seems more a personal wish than anything based
on fact or logic.</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">- Even in order to
extend the current Co-Chair term the PDP MUST
be followed and there are no other ways
written there other than another vote.
Otherwise how can this be done ?</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Fernando</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 19
Jul 2020, 18:08 Emem William, <<a
href="mailto:dwizard65@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="">dwizard65@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto" class="">
<div dir="auto" class="">Dear All, </div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">I can
recollect that a similar proposal was
proposed as a policy and it was
overwhelmingly rejected in Angola. The
current community totally rejected the
policy no one except the authors
supported the idea because we know it
can't work in this region. Using
online voting now would be like
passing the policy using the backdoor.
Am sure Jordie would like this idea
and hence his enthusiasm. However my
candid opinion is that we can't do
this. The most appropriate way forward
is to allow the Co chair who has been
doing a fantastic job to continue for
another 12 months or till the next
face to face meeting. The community
that voted him in Kampala still have
confidence in him. In any case even
with an online election he would still
likely win but I don't want polices to
be passed through the back door.
Therefore I think the most appropriate
way for this has been suggested as an
extension for the co-chair who's seat
would have been contested.</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="">Cheers.</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"
class="">Emem E. William<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
______________________________<wbr
class="">_________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br
class="">
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr
class="">mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br
class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="">
______________________________<wbr class="">_________________<br
class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br
class="">
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr
class="">mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>