<div dir="auto">Dear Sunday, dear community,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">First of all, I would like to point out that I see no reason to withdraw the policy proposal completely, although some minor editorial changes and corrections of stylistic and grammatical mistakes might be necessary.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> In regards to its content, a proper discussion from the side of the community is due.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">From my side, I do not think that the proposal adds operational burdens to the board. Rather, in my view, it makes the process of recall more clear and explicit. The board is already making a decision on whether or not each request is duly justified and worth appointing a committee. The present policy just spells out this process and adds a deadline for the board to make its decision. I think it is a necessary addition as having the board entertain all recall requests without assessing the justifications can prove to be a serious waste of the AFRINIC resources in the long run.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Moreover, setting a recall committee is necessary even if the board decided that a request is justified. The board here only determines whether or not the request has legitimate grounds, while the committee is the one conducting a thorough investigation and making a final report on the issue. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Secondly, I believe that the evaluation of the appointed committee members by the community is necessary to ensure the committee's integrity and ascertain that there are no conflicts of interest. When it comes to a 6 week waiting period, I agree that it is excessive and perhaps could be shortened as to streamline the process. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thirdly, I believe that it is very important that this proposal outlines the community's participation in every step of the recall process. The AFRINIC is governed through a bottom up process, so it makes sense that the ultimate decision-making power shall remain in the hands of the community. I don't think it would be fair for the recall committee to make such a decision unilaterally. It would rather make more sense for them to create a comprehensive report where they outline all facts and conclusions that is then brought forward to the community for a deciding vote. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Overall, in my view, this policy contains import clarifications to the recall process. In addition, it aims to reinforce AFRINIC's governance values in the sense of keeping the decision making power within the community. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I believe this proposal is a valuable addition to the CPM and thus im looking forward to hear more feedback on this regard from the side of the community. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best wishes, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ekaterina</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, 09:54 Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com">sfolayan@skannet.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Good Morning,</p>
<p>Apologies for a long email, but ... If it has to be, it has to be
and up to us.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In order to ensure that we focus on what is helpful, let me point
out a couple of issues with this proposed policy.<br>
</p>
<p>Referring to the CPM <br>
</p>
<p>3.4 Policy Development Process<br>
<b>Anyone can submit a proposal. Policy proposals are submitted to
the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>) by
the author</b>. AFRINIC will provide administrative support and
assist the author(s) in drafting the proposal if requested.
AFRINIC shall also provide relevant facts and statistics if
requested during the discussion.<br>
</p>
<p>One can see that:<br>
</p>
<p>1. The submission was sent to <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> ... This is OK</p>
<p>2. The submission was addressed to the Co-Chairs ... This is
Unnecessary</p>
<p>3. Addressing the Co-Chairs could suggest that they must
acknowledge ... Not really</p>
<p>4. The Co-Chairs must trigger discussions ... Not according to
the CPM.</p>
<p>5. The Co-Chairs not acting immediately, could kill a proposal
... Not at all<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Having outlined the above, let us deal with the substance of the
proposal - co-chair recall. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
The substance of the current recall provision in the CPM is:</p>
<p> - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall
committee</p>
<p> - The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of
the justification for the recall</p>
<p> - The conclusion of the recall committee shall determine the
outcome<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>It is important to therefore note that:<br>
</p>
<p> - The Appointment of the Recall committee is at the discretion
and wisdom of the AfriNIC Board.</p>
<p> - Beyond appointing a recall committee, the AfriNIC Board does
not even need to know the merit or otherwise of the recall</p>
- The recall committee's work/report, does not require the
approval of the AfriNIC Board.
<p> - The entire process does not have any input from the rpd.<br>
</p>
<p> - The process has never been tested.<br>
</p>
<p> - The recall committee's modus Operandi is a black-box. Hence
until it is tested, it is not wise to modify it <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The substance of the proposed policy:
</p>
<p> - The AfriNIC Board shall investigate the circumstances of the
justification for the recall</p>
<p> - The investigation will include community consultations<br>
</p>
<p> - The AfriNIC Board will junk the recall, if it sees no
justification for the recall</p>
<p> - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall then appoint a recall
committee</p>
<p> - There is a time waster - Name Challenge process embedded
therein. Pick 9 members one at a time for 6 weeks. One Year is
gone!<br>
</p>
<p> - If the Recall committee Stands, it will go ahead and
determine if a recall is necessary</p>
<p> - If a recall if not necessary, its work is done.</p>
<p> - If a recall is necessary, it will submit a report to RPD,
that will then vote whether to recall or not</p>
<p> - A Supermajority vote (70%) is needed to affirm the recall</p>
<p> - Where the vote is not obtained, the recall also fails.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter the pillar of
minimum Board involvement, without clearly articulating why.</p>
<p>Indeed, it goes ahead to burden the Board with more work.<br>
</p>
<p>Especially With:</p>
<p>(A) The Board shall first investigate into the recall request
within 4 weeks upon receiving the recall request and decide
whether the recall request is justified or not, after having
consulted with the community’s opinion in the mailing list.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
This is at total variance with the spirit of the current process and
provisions that simple gives the Board an administrative duty of
appointing the independent committee that will then go ahead to
determine the appropriateness of the recall request.<br>
<p>The proposal brings the Board into the role of being the RPD
umpire, and determining the merits or otherwise of the recall
request, before setting up a committee. Why the need to setup a
committee, if it will have determined the merit or otherwise of
the recall proposal?<br>
</p>
<p>All other details of the proposal follow the same pattern ...
solving a perceived problem, without really paying attention to
the underlining principle that allows flexibility and creativity,
without allowing process capture. <br>
</p>
<p>Indeed, proceeding on pushing this proposal through, will take at
least One Public Policy meeting, and therefore will not meet the
needs of the current situation.<br>
</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, I think the Author should withdraw the
proposal which was definitely submitted in haste, wait for the
play of the current situation, see the determination of the
matter, learn from it, and then use the experience to make a
proposal that will be better ... but definitely not with all those
details in the draft proposal that are laced with traps and mines,
too many for me to begin to enumerate herein.</p>
<p>Volunteer work is extensive, demanding and requires a lot of
input. Haste in not one of those ingredients.<br>
</p>
<p>Do have a nice day.<br>
</p>
<p>Sunday.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 11/24/20 2:56 PM, Abdulrauf Yamta
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Co-Chairs</div>
<div>Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC
Co-Chair Recall process. In view of some current
development, and the need to have a recall process properly
defined we seek that the chairs should seek that this
proposal be discussed immediately.</div>
<div>Thanks </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Abdulrauf <b>Yamta</b></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>