Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Andrew Alston]

Ok,

We need to stop for a moment and look at reality – not wishful thinking.

Firstly – I am hearing talk of rough consensus – and while consensus is 
applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them.  The 
ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication of which 
way the vote may go on a particular issue.  However, you can get total 
consensus on this list and beyond – and still stand a good chance of things not 
passing.

Why is this – consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive 
objections have been addressed.  However, a substantive objection has to have 
meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are objecting 
to.  And those can all be addressed, but when the non-substantive,  the 
illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or whatever, arguments come into it – 
those cannot be taken into account in consensus.  However, to accept or reject 
bylaw changes is not done by consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote.

So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication – but nothing 
more than that – because if people on the day go “I don’t like this, and it’s 
not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my vote”, and they vote 
no, things still won’t pass.

So, let me now talk about committees – for what purpose?  So that the 
“committee” can propose something and people just accept it?  So that the 
“committee” can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the 
“committee” can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice document 
better than one person can?

Guess what – it’s all meaningless – because at the end of the day – no matter 
who proposes, no matter what form – if members like the PRINCIPLE behind the 
change, they will vote in favor of it.  If they don’t, no matter who proposes 
it, they will vote against it.  And committees, individuals, whatever, it’s all 
meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass.  That means 
for every 1 vote that is cast against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a 
feel good game – this is the law.  In the same way, any individual can bring 
something to the floor and once its n the notice of meeting while it can be 
discussed on the floor, the resolution *CANNOT BE CHANGED* other than basic 
minor edits – it can only be withdrawn.

Yes – I like the idea of consensus to gauge what may or may not pass – and I 
believe that is what Alan has been trying to gauge before putting things to the 
floor.  End of the day though – it’s a nice idea, but has zero impact on the 
outcome.

Andrew



From: Arnaud AMELINA 
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Cc: "members-disc...@afrinic.net" 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - 
bylaws changes

+1 @Alain
Regards
Arnaud

2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA 
>:
Hi,

Let’s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the bylawsl. 
I do support the idea of a committee .

—Alain


On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian 
> wrote:

Dear CEO,
[speaking as a member of the community]
Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others points 
raised by the community which was not in your original document, here my 
response.

1.  On the Accountability Review.
This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which 
identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very 
important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the community 
will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA functions.
So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required 
attention and the consensual approach is more needed.
It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements due to 
lack of consensus.
2. on the Process
It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern thereafter 
the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus. Consensus here is 
strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough Consensus Model [1].
Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of 
archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted.
That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a committee to 
lead the process.

3. On the discussion.
Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were 
convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and 
intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement. We 
shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the disagreement 
views and addressing one 

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Arnaud AMELINA]

+1 @Alain

Regards

Arnaud

2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA :

> Hi,
>
> Let’s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the
> bylawsl. I do support the idea of a committee .
>
> —Alain
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian <
> christianb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear CEO,
>
> [speaking as a member of the community]
>
> Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others
> points raised by the community which was not in your original document,
> here my response.
>
>
> 1.  *On the Accountability Review.*
>
> This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which
> identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very
> important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the
> community will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA
> functions.
>
> So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the
> required attention and the consensual approach is more needed.
>
> It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements
> due to lack of consensus.
>
> *2. on the Process*
>
> It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern
> thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus.
> Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough
> Consensus Model *[1]*.
>
> Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of
> archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted.
>
> That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a
> committee to lead the process.
>
>
> *3. On the discussion.*
>
> Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were
> convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and
> intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement.
> We shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the
> disagreement views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH
> CONSENSUS.
>
> Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions
> even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the
> bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than
> 60 days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more
> members to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation
> period"
>
> *4. On the other points.*
>
> Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested.
>
> For example, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-
> June/000350.html lists some of the points
>
> *[1]* https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4
>
>
> Regards,
> Bope
>
> On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston  com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Mike Silber 
>> *Reply-To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC > >
>> *Date: *Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
>> *To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC 
>> *Cc: *"members-disc...@afrinic.net" 
>> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
>> changes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> …
>>
>>
>>
>> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members  to
>> acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving
>> voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this
>> membership category instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Boubakar +1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Members-Discuss mailing list
>> members-disc...@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>>
>>
> ___
> 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
>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[ALAIN AINA]

Hi,

Let’s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the bylawsl. 
I do support the idea of a committee .

—Alain


> On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear CEO,
> 
> [speaking as a member of the community]
> 
> Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others points 
> raised by the community which was not in your original document, here my 
> response.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  On the Accountability Review.
> 
> This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which 
> identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very 
> important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the community 
> will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA functions.
> 
> So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required 
> attention and the consensual approach is more needed.
> 
> It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements due 
> to lack of consensus.
> 
> 2. on the Process
> 
> It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern 
> thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus. 
> Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough 
> Consensus Model [1].
> 
> Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of 
> archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted.
> 
> That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a committee 
> to lead the process.
> 
>  
> 3. On the discussion.
> 
> Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were 
> convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and 
> intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement. We 
> shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the disagreement 
> views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH CONSENSUS.
> 
> Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions 
> even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the 
> bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than 60 
> days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more members 
> to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation period" 
> 
> 4. On the other points.
> 
> Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested.
> 
> For example, 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html 
>  
> lists some of the points
> 
> [1] https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability 
>  on section 1.4
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bope
> 
> On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston  > wrote:
> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Andrew
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Mike Silber >
> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC  >
> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC  >
> Cc: "members-disc...@afrinic.net " 
> >
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry  > wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members  to 
> acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving 
> voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this 
> membership category instead.
> 
>  
> 
> Boubakar +1
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ___
> Members-Discuss mailing list
> members-disc...@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Noah]

On 19 Sep 2016 13:28, "Douglas Onyango"  wrote:
>
> Adding any such language would make the Independent Director no
> different from Regional Directors, which would make it cease to be
> unique/relevant.
>

Is there anything unique with any of the independents who have been elected
this far. As far as i can tell, the individuals get to the board and play
by the same rules...

> However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had
> during out last election -- I would support making this an
> additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates
> have been presented.
>

+1 ... else you end up with what we have now. Its a huge contininent with
lots of competent folk if you will.

I read *Diversity*

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alan Barrett 
wrote:

>
> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji  wrote:
> >
>
> Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority.  Would adding
> geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support
> to pass?
>

SO: I think thats fair enough, looks like suggested approach from the
subsequent discussions seem to be helpful.

Cheers!

>
> Alan Barrett
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>



-- 






*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:  http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
 Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
seun.ojed...@fuoye.edu.ng
*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Onyango 
wrote:

> Hi Seun,
>
> However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had
> during out last election -- I would support making this an
> additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates
> have been presented.
>

SO: I think the intent is clear and your proposal above could address it.
So if i get you correctly, you are suggesting to put such criteria into the
guideline instead?

Cheers!

>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>



-- 






*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:  http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
 Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
seun.ojed...@fuoye.edu.ng
*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Douglas Onyango]

Hi Seun,

On 19 September 2016 at 12:08, Seun Ojedeji  wrote:
> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also 
> suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per 
> region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end 
> up having 4 directors from a region.

I am averse to adding any language that engenders regional balance for
the Independent Director. The very essence of the Independent Seat, as
captured in 13.4.ii of the bylaws (text below), is to accommodate
other competences/dimensions/criteria other than regional balance.
Adding any such language would make the Independent Director no
different from Regional Directors, which would make it cease to be
unique/relevant.

However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had
during out last election -- I would support making this an
additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates
have been presented.


Bylaws extract:
13.4.ii: Two Directors elected ... upon the recommendation of the
NomCom based on their competencies and not their regional
representation.

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Abibu Ntahigiye]

+1 to Frank.
The PRIMARY value to Associate members should be reflected in the association 
with Afrinic  and not Voting.
The PRIMARY value to resource members are the resources from Afrinic.

rgds
-
Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye.

On Sep 19, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Frank Habicht wrote:

> Hi Douglas,
> 
> valid points.
> One small "value addition" is of course the "priceless" association with
> AfriNIC. I trust that for "some, but only a few" entities this could be
> enough value.
> 
> But beyond that I think the question is: "how much more value does
> AfriNIC want to give and how many more associate members do we wish to get?"
> 
> We probably have diverse answers to this. I personally prefer if we can
> find enough seats at the members' meeting ;-)
> 
> About dropping the category altogether: I don't object. But maybe there
> are a number of entities that would want to become associate members,
> just because they like that, and without voting rights...???
> (I don't know)
> 
> Regards,
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/19/2016 11:05 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>> Hi Frank, et al,
>> On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht  wrote:
>>> I agree, with all of the above. Well said.
>>> Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these
>>> could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes
>>> very much into that someone's favour.
>> 
>> My original intent, which I thought I had expressed clearly in
>> previous discussions, is a more fundamental issue with the Associate
>> Membership category: lack of value addition. This issue is a parent
>> issue to the proposed clarifying text. It must be addressed first to
>> pave way for, and inform any clarifying text on Associate Membership
>> in the bylaws.
>> 
>> Now just to be clear, I am not advocating for voting rights per se.
>> What I am advocating for is value addition for every membership
>> category. The idea of a membership category that collects fees but
>> offers no value in return just doesn't sit well with me.
>> 
>> My proposal is that we find substantial value for this category. If we
>> can't, I believe the membership category makes no sense and should
>> effectively be dropped all together.
>> 
>> I hope this provides more clarity on my views.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Andrew Alston]

I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Mike Silber 
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Cc: "members-disc...@afrinic.net" 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes


On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry 
> wrote:

…


We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members  to 
acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting 
rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership 
category instead.

Boubakar +1


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Mike Silber]

> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry  wrote:
> 
…

> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members  to 
> acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving 
> voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this 
> membership category instead.
> 

Boubakar +1


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss