Hello,
inline...
> On Nov 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Alan Barrett <alan.barr...@afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>
>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> 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.
Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the
concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus” and not
“Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all
parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection… and
not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ?
Thanks
—Alain
>
>>>> 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
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
