> On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined
>>> for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as
>>> the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and
>>> this provision.
>>
>> When there’s an election, it’s usually clear whether or not winning the
>> election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country
>> quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do
>> we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional
>> seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8
>> when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating
>> one of the quota limits?
>>
>> When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence,
>> such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it
>> the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don’t see a need
>> to legislate this.
>
> If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my
> experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on
> dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures
> and/or open questions such as this when triggered.
>
> As such, I’d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted
> than a “we’ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary” approach.
I will propose text to deal with this.
>>> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of
>>> “endorsement” is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of
>>> those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the
>>> PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe
>>> here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be
>>> followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most
>>> importantly, withheld.
>>
>> The vagueness was already present.
>
> This isn’t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove
> that vagueness is worth consideration at least.
>
>> I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should
>> require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource
>> policy should require a vote by the Members?
>
> So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG
> meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen
> to be in the room would uphold the board’s decision. Absent that, it would
> then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the
> membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board’s decision. To
> me, this presents multiple possible outcomes:
>
> 1. Community endorses — Everything is fine, board decision stands.
> 2. Community rejects, membership does not reject — Unclear what
> happens, I presume board decision stands?
> 3. Community rejects, membership rejects — Board decision is? {
> Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective
> action by the board }?
>
> Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is
> voting handled in such case (mechanics)?
>
> Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential
> outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other
> stakeholders.
>
> I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those
> present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn’t
> entirely good. I’d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG
> mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss
> mailing lists as well.
>
> I’d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same
> standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the
> only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by
> board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification
> of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs.
I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus
requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach
consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision
that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to
overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority.
>>> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation
>>> at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60
>>> day comment period thereafter.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board
>> discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time
>> period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60
>> days notice before the fee changes go into effect.
>
> You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that’s not what I remember reading
> in the proposal.
>
> I’m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that
> step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs.
I will propose 60 days discussion before the Board makes a decision on fees,
and 60 days notice before such decision takes effect.
Alan Barrett
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
