Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs Elections Process"

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Sat Nov 9 05:46:23 UTC 2019

It is quiet common Board to be involved in the PDP and they are only on
exceptional situations as described in the proposal. This is like that
in other RIRs too.
I find this is the best model the situation board gets involved and it
works well when needed.


On 09/11/2019 02:19, Andrew Alston wrote:


> Coupla comments on this one:


> */In 3.3: /**/If both Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the

> PPM, the Board will on-the-spot designate a nonconflictive Chair for

> the session, that will be assisted by the staff/*


> *//*


> I don’t believe the board should designate, it should preferably be an

> on the spot nomination and floor election by show of hands or other

> mechanism at the meeting.  There has been and should remain separation

> between the board and the PDP process – since it is the boards duty to

> ratify the process followed to declare consensus on any policy passed,

> and hence, should a designate declare consensus on any policy, you

> create a conflict of interest situation.


> */In 3.3.1 Bullet point 6: PDWG Chairs will each serve staggered

> two-year terms. PDWG Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive

> term but are illegible to run again after a minimum one-year pause. /*


> */__/*


> Should that not say they are eligible after a minimum one-year pause? 

> I presume that’s a typo?


> */In 3.3.2 Bullet point 7: AFRINIC will communicate the names of

> acceptable candidates to the RPD List, announcing where candidate

> information will be published./*


> *//*


> This is ambiguous in my view point – you state in bullet point 3 of

> the same section that anyone who has been part of the RPD list for a

> minimum of 6 months may participate, in section 3.3.1 you specify a

> one year minimum pause – but beyond that – what does acceptable mean? 

> This needs some kind of definition – and I’d be quite happy to say

> explicitly that if those 2 criteria are met, they are eligible and

> then let the community decide, but if it does mean more than that, it

> needs less ambiguity.


> */In 3.3.2 Bullet Point 8: A period of 10 calendar days will then

> begin during which the community will be able to contribute relevant

> information on the candidates. This information, if confirmed, may be

> published simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day

> following the end of the 10-day period. As a result of that

> information, the Board could disqualify any candidate./*


> This represents a big problem to me.  It states as a result of the

> information the board may disqualify any candidate.  This is wide open

> and allows the arbitrary disqualification of candidates.  If someone

> is to be disqualified, it should be on the grounds of not meeting a

> defined set of acceptable criteria – that are published and known and

> codified in policy.  Anything else could result in similar conflict of

> interest to that mentioned in the first point in this email.


> */In 3.3.2 Bullet point 9: If any objections are raised by a member of

> the community, such objections must be communicated to the Board

> within 7 calendar days of the announcement of the results. The Board

> will then assess whether such objections are significant and have been

> proven. If no objections are raised, or if those aren’t considered,

> will proceed to ratify the winning candidate./*


> I would prefer this be done in a more open manner.  That is to say

> that if an objection is raised, the objection and the consideration

> thereof should be made public.  The community should be able to see

> the objections and why they were adjudicated in a particular manner.


> */In 3.3.2 final point: The Board is the highest instance of appeal in

> matters relating to the election process. The board may delegate some

> or all of the required functions into the Election and Nomination

> Committees./*


> *//*


> I would prefer this be handled by an appeal committee appointed

> outside of the electoral process, and whose members are ineligible for

> participation in the main election.  Again, I do not believe that the

> board should be involved in the functioning of the PDP since it is

> they that have to ratify policy that comes through the process. Hence,

> as per a few of my other points – I would prefer clear segregation. 

> While I acknowledge and fully agree that a board member, in his

> personal capacity, has every right to participate in discussions

> around a policy – since board members are naturally members of the

> community, I do not believe that they should hold a position to

> influence anything in the election of a candidate.


> Thanks


> Andrew


> *From:*JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at>

> *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 November 2019 17:04

> *To:* rpd at

> *Subject:* [rpd] new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:

> "Chairs Elections Process"


> Hi all,


> As with the previous ones, I'm attaching our proposal PDF, already

> submitted, so the community can start commenting in case the

> publication by AFRINIC is delayed.


> Thanks in advance for any inputs!


> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet






> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?


> The IPv6 Company


> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged

> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive

> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty

> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of

> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is

> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you

> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,

> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if

> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be

> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original

> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list