Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to
community-discuss@afrinic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
community-discuss-requ...@afrinic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
community-discuss-ow...@afrinic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. AFRINIC Interim CEO (Bope Domilongo Christian)
2. Re: Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for Final Candidate
Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee (John Walu)
3. Re: Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for Final Candidate
Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee (Mark Elkins)
4. Re: Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for Final Candidate
Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee (Dewole Ajao)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 18:16:56 +0200
From: Bope Domilongo Christian <christianb...@gmail.com>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>
Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Interim CEO
Message-ID:
<can7nxtovet02bbmozntzzm12y_sndjzdpty8vjwksuyhboh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear AFRINIC Community
As Community are aware, Mr Alan Peter Barrett, the Chief Executive Officer
of AFRINIC, submitted his resignation on 27 April 2019 with effect from 26
July 2019.
At its meeting of 14 June 2019, the Board appointed Mr Patrisse Deesse, the
Finance Director, as Interim Chief Executive Officer with effect from 27
July 2019 until a new Chief Executive Officer assumes AFRINIC duties. Mr
Deesse and Mr Barret will work together between 1 July 2019 and 26 July
2019 and finalise the handing over process.
The process for the recruitment of a new Chief Executive Officer has
already been started by the Remuneration Committee. Members will be
informed of the outcome of this process in due course.
Once again, the Board thanks Mr Barrett for his contribution to AFRINIC
during his tenure of office and wishes him well in all his future
endeavours.
Best regards,
Christian D. Bope, PhD
Chairman, AFRINIC Board
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190615/5a402138/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:54:07 +0300
From: John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>,
AFRINIC Communication <comm-annou...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for
Final Candidate Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee
Message-ID:
<CAHt2V=-mbzsqsrj2coyqvgjuagt-y5undpnuh+xbxwuzg2o...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is possible
that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted to protect the
confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was rejected. For example,
if the nominating committee had rejected a candidate because he is under
indictment and under disciplinary review in his day job for misconduct, I
don?t think that nomcom should be the ones to publicly disclose those
details.@Owen
Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy. However, we must also
enhance the Nomcom's transparency. Imagine a situation where Nomcomm
disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not respond to some
email. It is quite difficult really to really prove beyond reasonable it at
all such an email was ever sent. It is even harder to prove that it was
successfully delivered to the intended recipient.
In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was disqualified
because they did not respond to an email. (that in itself will discourage
and expose a Nomcom that is heavily biased towards knocking out, rather
than recruiting board members;-)
Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy while
enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to seek consent
or objection from Candidates - at the point of application - if they would
object to the reasons behind their rejection being publicly reported.
That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make decisions
knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to anyone (lack of
accountability).
So lets design and give Nomcomm a Standard Reporting Template to enhance
their transparency. They will remain independent and autonomous in the
functionality, but they should owe the community an understanding on how
they worked hard to raise good candidates for AfriNIC.
The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good start
and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms.
walu.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly smaller
candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on Afrinic board, year in
year out.
>
> Two possible answers:
> A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging' board
/management /community relationships that continue to persist. So nomcom
hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates.
>
> OR
> B) There are actually many good candidates applying BUT the Nomcom
'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing them to 1 or 2
nominees.
>
> To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom process needs to
be reformed.
>
> I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box process in
the nomination committee where the community has no clue about how many
candidates applied, how many got knocked out and why. IF national
Presidential election systems are so open about this, why is that it has to
remain hidden for Afrinic?
>
> And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as well as
someone who has once been rejected by some previous Nomcomm (I want to
believe it is within my right to share personal information/experience as
this is not covered under NDA, but I stand to be corrected ;-)
>
> At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the candidate
slate, they should also show a tally (without the names) of how many
candidates applied, how many got kicked out, why they were kicked out and
how many successfully went thro.
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is possible
that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted to protect the
confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was rejected. For example,
if the nominating committee had rejected a candidate because he is under
indictment and under disciplinary review in his day job for misconduct, I
don?t think that nomcom should be the ones to publicly disclose those
details.
> I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper question
above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our black-box nommcom
process is simply kicking them out in order to eventually present a single
candidate.
My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.
Owen-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190616/07a5f289/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 13:09:31 +0200
From: Mark Elkins <m...@posix.co.za>
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for
Final Candidate Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee
Message-ID: <49fcd9bd-d746-be95-6792-20bd74ad7...@posix.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Don't remember issues with NomCom when I was involved, not these types
of problems at least. Perhaps its time to not worry about which regions
volunteers come from any more.
On 2019/06/16 12:54, John Walu wrote:On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
>>>
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted to
protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was
rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had rejected a?
candidate because he is under indictment and under disciplinary review
in his day job for misconduct, I don?t think that nomcom should be the
ones to publicly disclose those details.
>>>
@Owen
Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy. However, we must
also enhance the Nomcom's transparency. Imagine a situation where
Nomcomm disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not respond
to some email. It is quite difficult really to really prove beyond
reasonable it at all such an email was ever sent.? It is even harder
to prove that it was successfully delivered to the intended recipient.
In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was
disqualified because they did not respond to an email. (that in itself
will discourage and expose a Nomcom that? is heavily biased towards
knocking out, rather than recruiting board members;-)
Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy
while enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to
seek consent or objection from Candidates - at the point of
application - if they would object to the reasons behind their
rejection being publicly reported.
That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make
decisions knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to
anyone (lack of accountability).
So lets design and give Nomcomm a? Standard Reporting Template to
enhance their transparency.? They will remain independent and
autonomous in the functionality, but they should owe the community an
understanding on how they worked hard to raise good candidates for
AfriNIC.
The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good
start and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms.
walu.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com
<mailto:walu.j...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly
smaller candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on Afrinic
board, year in year out.
>
> Two possible answers:
> A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging'
board /management /community relationships that continue to
persist. So nomcom hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates.
>
> OR
> B) There are actually many good candidates applying BUT the
Nomcom 'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing them
to 1 or 2 nominees.
>
> To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom process
needs to be reformed.
>
> I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box
process in the nomination committee where the community has no
clue about how many candidates applied, how many got knocked out
and why. IF national Presidential election systems are so open
about this, why is that it has to remain hidden for Afrinic?
>
> And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as well
as someone who has once been rejected by some previous Nomcomm (I
want to believe it is within my right to share personal
information/experience as this is not covered under NDA, but I
stand to be corrected ;-)
>
> At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the
candidate slate, they should also show a tally (without the names)
of how many candidates applied, how many got kicked out, why they
were kicked out and how many successfully went thro.
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted
to protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who
was rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had
rejected a? candidate because he is under indictment and under
disciplinary review in his day job for misconduct, I don?t think
that nomcom should be the ones to publicly disclose those details.
> I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper
question above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our
black-box nommcom process is simply kicking them out in order to
eventually present a single candidate.
My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.
Owen
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
m...@posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190616/50e79c35/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:39:37 +0100
From: Dewole Ajao <dew...@forum.org.ng>
To: John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com>, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net>,
AFRINIC Communication <comm-annou...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Reform Nomcomm - was Announcement for
Final Candidate Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee
Message-ID: <f3ee723a-07f5-60f9-9d52-e87346f5e...@forum.org.ng>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Since we are on the topic of "reforming" NomCom, I wonder why our bylaws
state that candidates for appointment to NomCom shall *not* be domiciled
in a region where an open seat is being contested. I think a person
resident within a region is more likely to know and have access to
suitably qualified candidates and we should remove this restriction as
we try to improve the nomination.
If the sole intention of this restriction was to prevent
favoritism/bias, I think adding transparency to the process will quite
easily expose such. Or is anyone aware of other justifications for
having that restriction in place?
Dewole.
On 6/16/2019 11:54 AM, John Walu wrote:On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
>>>
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted to
protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who was
rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had rejected a?
candidate because he is under indictment and under disciplinary review
in his day job for misconduct, I don?t think that nomcom should be the
ones to publicly disclose those details.
>>>
@Owen
Its true, we must protect the applicant's privacy. However, we must
also enhance the Nomcom's transparency. Imagine a situation where
Nomcomm disqualifies candidates because they allegedly did not respond
to some email. It is quite difficult really to really prove beyond
reasonable it at all such an email was ever sent.? It is even harder
to prove that it was successfully delivered to the intended recipient.
In such a case, Nomcom should publicly say Candidate X was
disqualified because they did not respond to an email. (that in itself
will discourage and expose a Nomcom that? is heavily biased towards
knocking out, rather than recruiting board members;-)
Perhaps a middle ground that would protect the candidate's privacy
while enhancing Nomcom Transparency and accountability would be to
seek consent or objection from Candidates - at the point of
application - if they would object to the reasons behind their
rejection being publicly reported.
That way we avoid giving a blank cheque to Nomcom who may make
decisions knowing very well that they need NOT explain themselves to
anyone (lack of accountability).
So lets design and give Nomcomm a? Standard Reporting Template to
enhance their transparency.? They will remain independent and
autonomous in the functionality, but they should owe the community an
understanding on how they worked hard to raise good candidates for
AfriNIC.
The report from Nomcomm with respect to the PDWG election is a good
start and can be refined and adapted for future Nomcomms.
walu.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 11:34 PM, John Walu <walu.j...@gmail.com
<mailto:walu.j...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I believe the deeper question is WHY is there an increasingly
smaller candidate slate of those volunteering to serve on Afrinic
board, year in year out.
>
> Two possible answers:
> A) Good candidates are avoiding the perceived 'challenging'
board /management /community relationships that continue to
persist. So nomcom hands are tied and cannot manufacture candidates.
>
> OR
> B) There are actually many good candidates applying BUT the
Nomcom 'Black-box' processes is kicking them out and reducing them
to 1 or 2 nominees.
>
> To drill down to the correct answer, I think the Nomcom process
needs to be reformed.
>
> I still do not understand the benefit of having a black box
process in the nomination committee where the community has no
clue about how many candidates applied, how many got knocked out
and why. IF national Presidential election systems are so open
about this, why is that it has to remain hidden for Afrinic?
>
> And I say this as someone who has once served on Nomcomm as well
as someone who has once been rejected by some previous Nomcomm (I
want to believe it is within my right to share personal
information/experience as this is not covered under NDA, but I
stand to be corrected ;-)
>
> At a minimum, we should request that as Nomcom publishes the
candidate slate, they should also show a tally (without the names)
of how many candidates applied, how many got kicked out, why they
were kicked out and how many successfully went thro.
In general, I agree with you. I will, however, note that it is
possible that there are situations where ?why? should be redacted
to protect the confidentiality and dignity of the applicant who
was rejected. For example, if the nominating committee had
rejected a? candidate because he is under indictment and under
disciplinary review in his day job for misconduct, I don?t think
that nomcom should be the ones to publicly disclose those details.
> I believe this information can shed some light on the deeper
question above of whether indeed we have fewer applicants or our
black-box nommcom process is simply kicking them out in order to
eventually present a single candidate.
My suspicion is that to some degree, both are occurring.
Owen
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190616/f2885782/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
------------------------------
End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 491, Issue 1
*************************************************
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
