> On Nov 9, 2016, at 02:04 , Alan Barrett <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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.
I think there is an alternative that is better… In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of “Policy stands as board implemented” with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? >>>> 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. > Sounds good. Owen _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
