<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Hi Owen. Sorry I don't really read the 3.6 the same way as you.
3.6 in my view wasn't thought for situation like this. It's being
glued for the occasion that's not the case. 3.6 is about how the
proposals are conducted, reviewed and passed within this forum in
a exceptional situation (pretty much where we are). All points
mentioned there have to do with proposals. We are not discussing
or advancing a proposal right now.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>That’s your special interpretation. It’s not what a plain english reading of the language says.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The PDP is in the document containing 3.6. The PDP is a process.</div><div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The co-chair election process is in the document containing 3.6. The co-chair election process is a process.</div><div>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.6 says “The process outlined in this document…”.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
</p><p class="">What CAN actually be done within 3.6 is someone to properly
present a proposal to amend the PDP and fix the issues we are
discussing here and then have this proposal treated under 3.6
(with no less than 4 weeks including the Last Call - which
coincides with your point number 3 below).</p></div></div></blockquote>I suppose that could also work, though it’s rather indirect and adds (unnecessary IMHO) complexity.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">In my opinion proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is ready for
it, but I guess that may not reach consensus. So a much shorter
proposal with just the essential we need to resolve this situation
is the way to go under 3.6. Would that match with what you are
trying to put ?<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>IMHO, AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is a fatally flawed proposal and I would not support it as currently written.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I think a much more direct proposal to clarify an expanded scope of 3.6 (closer to my interpretation instead of your rather narrow interpretation) would be the most likely to gain consensus, frankly. I think such is unnecessary, but _IF_ you insist on the (oddly) narrow interpretation of 3.6 you have put forth, then…</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="">Fernando<br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/07/2020 21:52, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:9418E82A-1159-498D-ABEB-6AE4CC3DAD8E@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jul 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/07/2020 13:39, Owen
DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class=""><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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class="">
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 class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
It is not my goal to make things easier for you or even
necessarily easier in general.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">It is my goal to achieve the best possible outcome through a
mechanism that comes as close to applying the PDP rules as
possible.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com" class="">
<div class="">
<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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
This statement ignores CPM section 3.6:</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none;
padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">
<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 class=""><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 class="">
<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 class=""><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 class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
It applies to all of the CPM ("The process outlined in this
document may vary…”).</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.
If not the co-chairs, then who?</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.
I think the explanation is well understood… “Because in person
meeting during the COVID crisis is impossible.”</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>3.
I’m not so sure about this. Whatever election process we decide
on should be put to a final community comment</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>period
of some form. I see no reason that should be less than 4 weeks.</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>4.
So you’re saying that the determination of how to (or whether
to) conduct co-chair elections should be made</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>by
some other method than community consensus and should not be
considered policy at least for this meeting?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>How
does that work?</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I still say that a (virtual) raising of
hands using the mechanisms available in nearly every
conferencing system capable of supporting</div>
<div class="">this meeting has the following advantages:</div>
<div class="">q<br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class=""><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 class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
This would most certainly be a variation of the PDP to meet the
emergency as it exists which would be permitted under 3.6, so,
yes,</div>
<div class="">my argument here depends on my argument above which you have
claimed you are not buying. However, hopefully with my
expansions on</div>
<div class="">the topic above, I can perhaps convince you to change your
mind and recognize that without something like that, we
literally box</div>
<div class="">ourselves into a situation with no way forward until such
time as we can arrange an in-person meeting. Personally, I think
that’s</div>
<div class="">far from the best outcome.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><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 class=""><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 class="">This would make sense if there was basis for
it, but currently there is AFAIK.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The basis for it is 3.6. Read the CPM carefully read 3.6. It’s
not rocket science. The CPM describes all of the policies, the
PDP, and the co-chair election process within the one document.
Section 3.6 provides for variance of the process[sic] should be
processes within</div>
<div class="">the document. That includes the co-chair election process
unless you can show me why it does not.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Owen</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Fernando<br class="">
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CE966FE8-5868-492C-91B0-B1A6B36CE4BA@delong.com" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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 class="">seems to be the approach with the fewest
drawbacks and which can easily be implemented in time.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Owen</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""> <br class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div><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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</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>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>