<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Noah and all</p>
<p>I am not sure if you are not used with it, but normally when a
proposal is is presented it is normal that until there are points
to be adjusted that people get opposed or support them. This is a
clear way to show each individual's position about aspects of that
proposal and helps the Co-Chairs to evaluate if any consensus has
been reached or not. Along with that support or opposition people
must also explain their reasons other than just "I don't like it".<br>
It's a normal practice and it's in no way meant to offend if it
sounded like that. Depending on the complexity and length of the
proposal people may support some point and oppose to other and it
is perfectly fine that each one makes it very clear to all other
and to the chair their point of view this way.<br>
In my view for particularly this proposal I have plenty of reasons
to oppose to this multiple points.</p>
<p>Regarding the proposal itself consensus is made by all of us and
it is up to the co-chairs evaluate it based on the
support/opposition and mainly in the arguments and justifications
that have been put to each important point of the proposal. That's
how it works everywhere I know and how is possible to reach 'rough
consensus'.<br>
</p>
<p>Reaching consensus on a proposal is a very different thing from
selecting people for a role. Both things don't work the same way
as a proposal that have technical points that can be supported by
technical documentation and practical scenarios. People not
necessarily, that's why when they are chosen in a election there
is not much question left, different from a scenario when there is
a high level of subjectivity is involved.<br>
There should not be "random community voting" for selecting
someone, but eligible people that can vote on such process should
be based on minimal criteria. Normally people who can vote are
those who are truly part of the process, and not any random person
never participates or helps to build that environment and just
subscribe at the last minute in order to vote. If this can be
secured there are no damage to the process.<br>
</p>
<p>For the process for a appointing a interim Co-chair it is such a
special scenario and may impact other important matters that
justifies to involved the entire Board in that process. This
brings more legitimacy because it doesn't fall in the hands of a
single person but in multiple hands of different people with
different points of view. If the board is able to meet once a
month or as soon as possible, even remotely when necessary to take
such decision that should not be a big issue. Board members are
elected also to take this type of important decisions as well.<br>
Let's remember that the role of the Co-Chair is very important to
the RIR ecosystem and depending on the case can impact
significantly important aspects of Internet and resource
distribution to the region, so another reason having the entire
Board to take such important decision in a exceptional case like
this.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 03/08/2020 16:44, Noah wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEqgTWYVjMys__CQjUWugKTw2hm4Dbc21F+4sh0ZXvzUpwvDVg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">noah@neo.co.tz</a><br>
<br>
Alain P. Aina<br>
<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>