<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Fernando and WG<br><br>(There has been only one comment so far and so we will address the points made by Fernando in this periodic update from authors).<br><br>Please can we present arguments without proclaiming “I oppose” or “I support”!.<br><br>The working group debates and then tries to converge towards adoption of policy by consensus. Isn’t it?<br><br>You seem to insinuate and repeat the well spread idea that the working group consensus is made by the co-chairs. Co-chairs just oversee the process by which the working group derives its consensus.<br><br>The consensus approach used here makes it clear that voting is not a preferred option and defines how outcomes of polls conducted either by show of hands or humming during the consensus process are treated.<br><br>The working group makes decisions on policy proposals on how to manage and distribute Internet number resources and yet can’t appoint it's co-chairs with the same method?<br><br>Co-chairs selection which is based on merit with broad acceptance of the working group can be done via consensus and not rely on random “community” voting.<br><br>After all that was said above, the proposed co-chair appointment procedure favors consensus, but allows “voting”.<br><br>If for some reasons, consensus can’t be reached, then a consensus-oriented secret ballot voting is organized. Voters are called to indicate the preferential order of “can live with” each candidate.<br><br>As for the “Board Chair” vs “full board” appointing an interim co-chair, do we really need to involve the entire board in the appointment of an interim co-chair? Doesn't the Chair embody the board enough to make this appointment, especially at its discretion when no method is imposed on him?<br><br>Do we have to engage the full board which is also involved in handling the co-chairs recalls in this appointment?<br><br></div><div>cheers,<br clear="all"></div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><b>./noah</b></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 4:13 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I oppose the proposal for one main reason: it says "The working
group makes decisions by consensus and shall also appoint
co-chairs by consensus."<br>
This is too utopic really and make zero sense. One thing is to
have a proposal advanced by rough consensus at the judgment of the
Co-Chairs, another is to choose someone for a position "by
consensus". Electing (choosing in some languages) is selecting.<br>
How are we supposed to have someone chosen "by consensus" if there
are multiple candidates ? It make zero sense. Election should be
the only option for choosing people.<br>
Who will be responsible to determine there was consensus on
someone's name if a Co-Chair is running for re-election ? The
remaining Co-Chair which is a single person ? It doesn't make any
sense at all.<br>
</p>
<p>What's wrong with elections ? It works fine everywhere if well
conducted and with proper systems that leaves no margin for
doubts.<br>
Why resistance in holding elections ? That's normal part of many
business and cases.</p>
<p>An election with simple bounds as 1) cut off date to be
registered in the list 2) a system that is auditable and 3) a
mechanism that can fill temporary vacant seat like the AfriNic
Board appointing someone is not rocket science and leaves almost
no point for disputing.</p>
<p>People are not policy proposals and must not be chosen by
consensus, only by election.</p>
<p>Finally why giving the task to the Chair of Afrinic Board of
Directors to choose someone and not to the entire Board as it is
in other places ? This makes the act much more robust than a
selection done by a single person.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 21/07/2020 17:12, Noah wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><b>Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG)
Guidelines and Procedures</b><br>
<br>
Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal<br>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
The current PDP uses a working group for policy development
activities. It does not define specific procedures and
operational rules for the working group. This has over the
time led to interpretation issues in regards to how the
working group is administered and how discussions are
moderated.<br>
<br>
Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
The proposal addresses the problems by defining clear and
explicit Working Group guidelines and procedures.<br>
<br>
Policies the proposal amends/obsoletes <br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
The proposal amends the Policy Development Process, section
3.0 of the AFRINIC CPM.<br>
<br>
Proposal<br>
-------------<br>
<br>
1.0 Introduction<br>
<br>
The Policy Development working group (PDWG) provides an open
public forum to discuss Internet number resources policies
and related topics of interest to AFRINIC and the Internet
community in the AFRINIC service region.<br>
<br>
PDWG sessions are held at AFRINIC Public policy meetings.
Between meetings, discussions continue through the Resource
Policy discussions mailing list. The PDWG is open to all
interested individuals.<br>
<br>
This document serves as guidelines on how the working group
shall operate. It defines clear roles and responsibilities
for the PDWG co-chairs and clear procedures for the working
group’s administration.<br>
<br>
2.0 Co-chairs<br>
<br>
Two PDWG co-chairs primarily administer the Policy
Development working group. The PDWG co-chairs perform a
vital role in managing the working group. The effectiveness
of the PDWG is dependent on the active participation of the
co-chairs. PDWG co-chairs undertake their role on a
volunteer basis.<br>
<br>
The co-chairs coordinate the activities of the policy
development’s working group and are expected to attend all
AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings. They must remain subscribed
to the AFRINIC Policy Discussion mailing list for the
duration of their term and must also be subscribed to the
AFRINIC member-discuss mailing list during their term.<br>
<br>
For each policy proposal, one co-chair must be assigned as
the primary contact; both co-chairs however shall actively
participate in the consensus building. The leading co-chair
for the proposal as described above shall guide the policy
proposal through the different phases of the PDP.<br>
<br>
2.1 Responsibilities of PDWG co-chairs<br>
<br>
The co-chairs’ responsibility encompasses at least the
following: <br>
<br>
· Ensure working group process and content management
<br>
<br>
The co-chairs have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that
the working group achieves forward progress .The co-chairs
are also responsible to ensure that the working group
operates in an open and fair manner.<br>
<br>
· Moderate the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list<br>
<br>
The co-chairs should attempt to ensure that the discussions
on the list are relevant and that they converge to consensus
agreements. The co-chairs should make sure that discussions
on the list are summarized and that the outcome is well
documented to avoid repetition and other abuses.<br>
<br>
· Organize, prepare and chair the face-to-face and
on-line formal working group meetings<br>
<br>
The responsibilities of the co-chairs are listed below:<br>
<br>
2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting<br>
<br>
- Assist authors with formatting proposal<br>
<br>
- Introduce policy proposals to the policy discussion
mailing list<br>
<br>
- Discourage any behavior that jeopardizes open
participation to policy discussions, especially for
newcomers.<br>
<br>
- Monitor and moderate discussions held on AFRINIC policy
discussion mailing list<br>
<br>
- Announce the call for presentation of policy proposals
for Public Policy Meetings on the policy discussion mailing
list<br>
<br>
- Read presentation's slides to familiarise themselves with
the details and ensure they match proposals ‘text. In case
of any difference, submission of an updated version of the
proposal on the mailing list to notify the working group is
required, even if these changes will not be considered.<br>
<br>
- Create agenda presentation slides for the meeting with
AFRINIC staff.<br>
<br>
- Guide the consensus building process; announce the
current status of a policy proposal.<br>
<br>
- Read AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting minutes and makes
corrections as necessary<br>
<br>
- Present the policy discussion working group report to the
AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.<br>
<br>
2.1.2 During a Public Policy Meeting<br>
<br>
- Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the
discussions.<br>
<br>
- Determine whether proposals gained enough support to move
to the next phase.<br>
<br>
- Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the AFRINIC
Public Policy Meeting<br>
<br>
- Present the policy discussion working group report to the
AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.<br>
<br>
2.1.3 After a Public Policy Meeting<br>
<br>
- Send a report of the Public Policy Meeting to the
community and policy discussion mailing lists including
policy proposal discussion outcomes and open action items.<br>
<br>
- Monitor and moderate discussions during the last-call
phase period.<br>
<br>
- Summarise discussions, and following the end of the
last-call, post the decision regarding whether the proposal
has reached consensus or not.<br>
<br>
- Submit policy proposal ratification report to the AFRINIC
board of directors.<br>
<br>
2.2. Appointment of PDWG co-chairs <br>
<br>
The working group appoints two co-chairs for a two-years
term. Co-chairs’ appointments occur in alternate years for
each seat (seat1 and seat2).<br>
<br>
The working group makes decisions by consensus and shall
also appoint co-chairs by consensus. Elections should be
used as a last resort solution.<br>
<br>
The appointment for each seat follows the following process:<br>
<br>
At least 60 days before the Public Policy Meeting, AFRINIC
staff sends a call for nominations to the policy development
mailing list. The call will contain:<br>
<br>
- Details of the co-chair position to be filled (seat1 or
seat2)<br>
<br>
- Details of the duties of the position.<br>
<br>
- The closing date for nominations; 30 days from the date of
the call.<br>
<br>
Any natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC
service region is allowed to volunteer.<br>
<br>
Volunteers make themselves known by introducing themselves
(short biography and motivation) as a candidate on the
working group mailing list.<br>
<br>
Candidates for the co-chair’s position should be known as
active participants on the working group mailing list with
good experience with the AFRINIC policy development process,
and must have attended at least two (2) AFRINIC Public
Policy Meetings of which one must be in person, during the
last 3 years.<br>
<br>
If at least one nomination is received by closing date, the
appointment process starts. The appointment must be held at
the upcoming Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the
agenda. Those present at the session, either in person or
remotely, will determine by consensus among the candidates
who shall take the available position. The remaining chair
will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the
working group finds itself without a co-chair, the chair of
the AFRINIC Board of Directors will lead the consensus
process.<br>
<br>
If only one candidate is being evaluated, the lack of
consensus must declare the seat vacant. The chair of AFRINIC
board of directors shall appoint interim co-chair. The
Interim co-chair will act up to the appointment of the new
co-chair.<br>
<br>
If no consensus can be reached and more than one candidate
is being evaluated, then a secret ballot to elect the new
co-chair will be held. Everyone physically present at the
session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes and
counting shall be conducted using a ranked preferential
voting method otherwise known as IRV. The winner of the
secret ballot will become the new co-chair.<br>
<br>
In the unlikely event that after all the rounds of counting
of the vote, there is a tie between the two (2) most ranked
candidates, they shall be asked to select one among them to
serve the term by consensus. The seat shall be declared
vacant in case of failure of agreement between the last two.<br>
<br>
If the secret ballot cannot be held, the seat is declared
vacant. The chair of AFRINIC board of directors shall
appoint interim co-chairs(s). The Interim co-chair(s) will
act up to the appointment of the new co-chair(s).<br>
<br>
Exit of co-chair includes a handover period and an
expectation that the sitting chair follows proposals, which
have already reached consensus, to the completion of their
PDP cycle.<br>
<br>
2.3. Recalling a co-chair<br>
<br>
If the co-chair does not attend two consecutive AFRINIC
Public Policy Meetings without reasons or has been publicly
reported by the other co-chair as no longer attending to the
working group’s affairs without reasons, the co-chair will
be removed from its role.<br>
<br>
Anyone may request the recall of a working group co-chair at
any time, upon a written request with justification to the
AFRINIC Board of Directors. The request must be supported by
at least ten (10) other persons.<br>
<br>
The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall
committee, excluding the persons requesting the recall and
the co-chair. The recall committee shall investigate the
circumstances of the request for the recall and determine
the outcome in not more than 4 weeks after the recall is
recorded. The recall committee report shall be published on
the working group mailing list.<br>
<br>
The recall committee decision shall be final and binding.<br>
<br>
Whenever a co-chair is removed from its role and recalled,
the remaining co-chair will assume the chairing role of the
working group until the appointment of a new co-chair(s).<br>
<br>
2.4. Resignation of co-chair<br>
<br>
If a co-chair resigns, the remaining co-chair will assume
the chairing role of the working group until the appointment
of a new co-chair(s).<br>
<br>
If both co-chairs resign, the chair of the AFRINIC board of
directors shall as a matter of urgency lead the appointment
by the working group of an interim co-chair(s) via the
mailing list or at the Public Policy meeting. If no
consensus can be reached, the chair of the Board of
directors shall appoint interim Co-chairs(s) for the working
group.<br>
<br>
The Interim chair will act up to the appointment of the new
co-chair(s).<br>
<br>
3.0 Operations working group (PDWG)<br>
<br>
3.1 Moderation of working group discussions and sessions<br>
<br>
The challenge of managing the policy development working
group sessions is to balance the need for open and fair
consideration of the issues against the need to make forward
progress. The working group, as a whole, has the final
responsibility for striking this balance. The working group
co-chairs have the responsibility for overseeing the
process.<br>
<br>
To facilitate making forward progress, the working group
co-chairs may wish to decide to reject or defer the input
from an individual, based upon the following criteria:<br>
<br>
Old:<br>
The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved
and is redundant with information previously available;<br>
<br>
Minor:<br>
The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already
been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the
existing decision;<br>
<br>
Timing:<br>
The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not
yet opened for discussion;<br>
<br>
Scope:<br>
The input is outside the scope of the discussions or of the
working group<br>
<br>
3.2 Individual behaviors<br>
<br>
Occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior
on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the working group
co-chairs, is disruptive to the working group’s progress or
goes against applicable Codes of Conduct.<br>
<br>
Unless the disruptive behavior is severe enough that it must
be stopped immediately, the co-chairs should attempt to
discourage the disruptive behavior by communicating directly
with the offending individual. If the behavior persists, the
co-chairs should send at least one public warning on the
mailing list. The warning should clearly expose what is
being cautioned on the individual and the basis of co-chairs
judgment.<br>
<br>
As last resort, and typically after one or more explicit
warnings, and if the behavior persists, the working group
co-chairs may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of
the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30
days. The application of this restriction must be gradual.
If the individual resumes with the same behavior or worse,
the restriction period may increase.<br>
<br>
Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual
must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the
list.<br>
<br>
Other Mailing list control solutions may be considered. The
working group must have adopted these solutions.<br>
<br>
Like all other working group’s co-chairs' decisions, any
suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal.<br>
<br>
3.3. Public Policy Meeting<br>
<br>
A Public Policy Meeting (PPM) is a meeting open to the
community wherein proposals for policies are discussed
within the framework of the Policy Development Process
(PDP). The AFRINIC board of Directors calls PPMs in
accordance with section 11.2 of the Bylaws.<br>
<br>
If one co-chair can’t participate in a Public Policy
Meeting, the second co-chair shall chair the meeting.<br>
<br>
If both co-chairs can’t participate in a meeting, the
working group shall appoint one (1) person temporarily to
lead the session. If the working group cannot appoint a
temporary chair, the chair of AFRINIC board of directors
shall appoint a temporary chair. If the board chair fails to
appoint a temporary chair, the meeting shall be adjourned.<br>
<br>
The temporary chair appointed above shall lead the
discussions according to the agenda, but can’t determine
consensus on policy proposals. He will provide meeting
minutes to the mailing list and allow the co-chairs to take
over.<br>
<br>
While open discussion and contribution is essential to
working Group working group success, co-chairs are
responsible for ensuring forward progress. When acceptable
to the working group, co-chairs may call for restricted
participation (but not restricted attendance!) at Public
Policy meetings for the purpose of achieving progress. The
working group co-chairs then have the responsibility to
refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is
unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or
who, in the opinion of the co-chairs, is disrupting the
working group process.<br>
<br>
3.4 Consensus<br>
<br>
The working group makes decisions by consensus as defined in
the PDP<br>
<br>
4.0 Appeals<br>
<br>
4.1 Suspension of posting privileges<br>
<br>
Anyone whose privileges of posting to the mailing list have
been suspended by the working group co-chairs may file an
appeal against the decision to the chair of the AFRINIC
board of directors. The chair will evaluate the
circumstances, hear the co-chairs and complainer and decide.
The chair’s decision shall be final and binding.<br>
<br>
4.2 Co-chairs appointment<br>
<br>
A person who disagrees with the actions taken by a co-chair
regarding the appointment process shall follow the conflict
resolution process as defined in the PDP.<br>
<br>
Actions taken by the chair of AFRINIC board of directors
regarding the appointment process are final and binding<br>
<br>
5.0 Acknowledgements<br>
<br>
The author would like to acknowledge that some text and
procedures in this document have been adapted from RFC2418
and from the working group’s practices of other RIRs.<br>
<br>
Authors<br>
Noah Maina<br>
<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a><br>
<br>
Alain P. Aina<br>
<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net" target="_blank">aalain@trstech.net</a><br>
========</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>Cheers,<b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>./noah</b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>