Personally, what stands out for me - and something I expressed to a few Board members during Kampala - is that the AFRINIC Board are awfully visible, both in public and non-public circumstances.
I sometimes can't quite figure out whether AFRINIC is being run by its staff or the Board. I would like to limit the operational visibility of the Board, and expose more airtime with the AFRINIC staff on a number of matters, both strategic and operational. I do not discount the value and requirement of the Board, but I think it is overshadowing those charged with running the organization on a day-to-day. Mark. On 24/Jul/19 06:11, Owen DeLong wrote: > Michuki and Dawit, > > Thank you for doing this. > > I admit that I was pulled into other things and was unable to attend the open > mic, so I will take this opportunity to comment on the summary. > > Organizational Transparency > > This has been one of the greatest failings of the AfriNIC board to date. > While I agree that there are some things the board should not disclose > (mostly matters that must remain confidential due to legal strategy, attorney > work product, the privacy of staff members undergoing some form of > disciplinary review or action, salary data, etc., I do think that the general > rule for the board should be “if in doubt, make it available to the > community” rather than “hide everything unless forced to disclose” (which > seems to be closer to the current operating model). > > I do not believe that detailed information increases suspicion. Rather, I > think information breeds trust and silence breeds suspicion. > > I do support the idea of placing much stricter limits on the scope of the > board NDA and a much tighter definition of the confidential information > covered by it. > > In general, I think that there should be a time limit not to exceed 10 days > for the board minutes to be made public after a board meeting. (note, I mean > 10 days after the meeting, not 10 days after they are adopted at the > following meeting). > > Community Engagement > > I question the value of additional meetings and additional board travel > expense to support them. I think there are better ways for the board to > improve community engagement that will both serve a larger fraction of the > community and cost the organization less. > > There should be an open alias that anyone who is subscribed to > community-discuss can use in order to communicate with the board. Board > members should have an email address published to community members which > they monitor and respond to reasonably. (This is the case in all other RIRs > to the best of my knowledge). > > Board members should be required to read and where relevant or requested, > respond to the community-discuss and members-discuss lists. > > In general, board members should seek to make themselves available, > approachable, and easy for community members to interact with, both at > meetings and via email at other times. > > Governance Committee > > IMHO, the governance committee should not be a standing committee. It should > have been constituted as an ad hoc committee with a mandate to review the > current governance structure of AfriNIC, identify specific improvements that > needed to be made, propose the necessary bylaw amendments, procedural > changes, etc., explain them to the community and work through the process > with the community to refine those proposals into actionable motions or > documents. In the case of motions, shepherding them through the process until > a vote shows a clear outcome (acceptance or otherwise), and then disband. > > There is no reason to have a committee whose job is to act as a go-between > between the community and the board. This only exacerbates the problems > mentioned in Community Engagement. > > Bylaws, Procedural Matters, and Legal Interpretations > > Nowhere else in the world are the RIR general member meetings subject to such > conduct as is becoming the norm for AfriNIC meetings. > > There are a number of problems that need to be addressed here… > Some need change to the bylaws: > + Poorly defined procedures > + Lack of a framework for addressing exceptional > circumstances > + Overly specific definitions of certain aspects (vote > must be a show of hands) while failing to define > important criteria (how many candidates can one vote > for if two people are to be elected and how > are those votes to be counted). > + Lack of a mandate for NOMCOM to recruit sufficient > candidates to stand for election (IMHO, minimum N+1 and > better 3N or more where N is the number of positions > to be elected).. > etc. > > Some merely need some effort to create proper procedural and > operational language and codify it in an appropriate place. > + The specifics of how proxies are handled > + The ability to appoint proxies for each and/or all of > the specific proxy purposes > + Election of Directors > + Election of ASO/AC Representatives > + Voting on Motions on the agenda > + General representation in any other matter > brought before the meeting > + Whether or not a proxy is an authorization to > vote in a particular manner or a general authority > to act according to the judgment of the person > appointed as proxy. > + Under extraordinary circumstances such as a meeting > which runs well beyond its schedule, the ability to > appoint a proxy from the floor to act in one’s stead > for the remainder of the meeting. > > It is my opinion having observed this for several years that the > structure of the board requiring specific seats to be allocated to > specific regions causes more problems than it solves and that AfriNIC > would be better served by making all board seats > electable at large. > > Election and Election Related > > IMHO, the concerns must be addressed now, while there is no active > election cycle. They should not be addressed by the > NOMCOM as by the time the NOMCOM is constituted, it is too late and the > NOMCOM is technically somewhat conflicted > in such deliberations as they are the implementers of any such > decisions made. > > IMHO,the board should appoint an ad hoc committee comprised of board > and community members to address these issues or > the board should task the governance committee with this job. In any > case, the committee in question should be required > to provide an initial set of findings to the community (not filtered by > the board) no later than the end of November. Community > input should be sought on the initial findings and the committee should > provide a final recommendation to the community > and the board in the form of a set of actionable documents, board > motions, and/or special or normal resolutions as needed > to implement said recommendations. This final set of recommendations > should be provided to both the board and the > community in their entirety at the same time. > > Member Perceptions > > I think that the various conspiracy theories and accusations being > bandied about by various parties are not worthy of > our time and should be dismissed. > > I do not believe that anyone is out to destroy AfriNIC or any > particular member organizations. Nonetheless, the amount > of attention being paid to these beliefs by some individuals is > definitely creating an air of mistrust and causing strife > and additional difficulty for the community. > > IMHO, the best way to address this is greater openness and transparency > and more collegial behavior in general. > > We should strive to live up to those standards. When we succeed, this > will be much less of an issue, IMHO. > > Observations and Conclusion > > These are very well written and I could not agree more. Thank you again > for producing such a well thought out > and comprehensive document. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
