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

[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

Dewole Ajao dewole at
Tue Feb 9 09:47:20 UTC 2021

The proposed election process may have been workable if we did not
already have contention over an unusual/unexplained surge in mailing
list registrations a couple of moons ago. Setting a cut off date before
that surge then cuts off some real humans that joined the mailing list
after the surge. What to do?


On 2/9/2021 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> The co-chair model is by far the more common model among all the RIRs.


> However, there is one exception and I will say that in its region, it

> has served the community rather well throughout the history of that RIR.


> It’s also the region where I have the greatest familiarity, now being

> in my 14th year of service in that body.


> In our region, we have 15 members and they come from diverse segments

> of the community (cloud providers, large ISPs, small ISPs,

> individuals, and more).


> Being that I have been involved for so long in that process at such a

> deep level, my view may be somewhat biased, but if the PDWG wishes to

> pursue a transition towards an Advisory Council structure instead of

> just 2 co-chairs, I’m happy to contribute my knowledge and experience

> to that process.


> However, this should not be the immediate fix to the current situation.


> The current situation should be resolved in the most efficient

> possible way to achieve a fair and open election from the existing

> participants in the community.


> Lacking co-chairs to lead the process, I think it should probably fall

> to the election committee to manage the election process. I propose that:


> 1.EC set a date (in the past) at which time you must have been a

> member of the RPD

> list in order to vote. This should prevent any room stacking and allay

> any fears of room-stacking.


> 2.EC sets a date (~10-14 days out) when nominations open. Anyone

> eligible person wishing to serve may

> self-nominate or be nominated by another. EC should collect and

> validate all such

> nominations. All validated nominees should be placed on a slate.

> Nominations should

> run for 1 week from the opening date.


> 3.Each candidate should be able to submit a video and written

> statement to be posted on the

> AfriNIC web site at the same time as the slate is announced.


> 4.Two weeks after announcement of the slate, voting should commence

> and run for 1 week.

> Each member should make a ranked-choice vote of 1 or more candidates

> to hold the office.


> If you aren’t familiar with ranked-choice voting,


> <>

> provides good detail.


> Essentially, the votes are counted in consecutive rounds, starting

> with everyone’s first choice.

> The candidate receiving the lowest percentage vote in each round is

> eliminated and their votes

> are transferred to the next choice of each voter who had contributed

> to their total votes.

> In this case, since we are electing two co-chairs, once the first

> candidate reaches a ≥50%

> majority in the ranked-choices, they should be selected to serve out

> the longer term and

> the next-highest ranked candidate should be selected to serve out the

> shorter term.


> Even this process will take time, but I think we should have a

> deliberate process and a proper election

> for the fairness of all.


> Owen



>> On Feb 9, 2021, at 00:16 , Dewole Ajao via RPD <rpd at

>> <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>> Actually there is no king in the PDP, fortunately or unfortunately.

>> Hopefully though, the market will be coordinated as best possible

>> using the untested rules we have to work with in this case.


>> My take:


>> PDP (section 3.5) says a co-chair may be recalled (with request and

>> justification sent to the board of directors); Logically, the recall

>> process ends in either recall of the co-chair or continuation of

>> his/her term. That's all that the conflict resolution section states

>> and as such we will have to go to another part of the PDP that makes

>> mention of a truncated co-chair term.


>> The applicable section (i.e. 3.3) says the Working Group may select a

>> replacement to serve the remainder of the term. Given the current

>> polarized state of this working group, perhaps Afrinic staff under

>> the guidance of the CEO and some advisory from the Board (being the

>> representatives of resource members) could convene an online meeting

>> in which the working group properly analyzes the situation and

>> chooses a path forward?


>> Considering our current fear of room stacking ahead of either face to

>> face and online polls, it would be interesting to see how we resolve

>> this one. Is this the birth of a PDWG led by a small group rather

>> than 2 individuals? A group given a mandate to somehow tidy up many

>> of the flaws in the current PDP?


>> Regards,


>> Dewole who quickly runs off to get a flame retardant suit :-P


>> On 2/9/2021 7:17 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:


>>> I don't agree Fernando, a committee does not usually have that

>>> 'absoluteness' you mentioned. I can also understand the remarks

>>> 'Findings/Outcome of the Recall Committee' to mean that there is a

>>> hanging process.


>>> Please, the committee's outcome remains that the Co-Chairs should be

>>> recalled. There must be a pronouncement from the board that

>>> constituted the Recall committee. This is not a market square so we

>>> cannot take the 'shout of a mad man in the market to mean the

>>> proclamation of the king'. The king must speak through the

>>> authorised channel, before the people can accept.


>>> Therefore, we wait!


>>> Simply


>>> Daniel



>>> On 09/02/2021 3:18 am, Badru Ntege wrote:

>>>> I believe this is the correct understanding of the outcome.

>>>> We now need to move forward with the selection of new co-chairs.

>>>> The community is committed to accept the outcome of the committee.

>>>> Lets move on.

>>>> Regards.

>>>> *From:*Fernando Frediani<fhfrediani at>

>>>> *Date:*Tuesday, 9 February 2021 at 01:45

>>>> *To:*"rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy"<rpd at>

>>>> *Subject:*Re: [rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

>>>> No Daniel, the output of the Recall Committee regarding the

>>>> Co-Chairs is already final (read point 19 from their report)

>>>> according to whats the CPM says about it, so it does not have to be

>>>> approved by anyone, not even the Board itself.

>>>> So currently we don't have any Co-Chairs.

>>>> What the Committee has mentioned in the document is for the Board

>>>> to lead the election of the new Co-Chairs and determine the

>>>> transition during this interim.

>>>> That's it.

>>>> Fernando

>>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, 19:29 Daniel Yakmut via RPD, <rpd at

>>>> <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>>>> Here we are indeed in a strange situation, which we created for

>>>> ourselves. A situation we were drumming for. I thought we all

>>>> had it

>>>> figured out and  that is why we called for recall of the Co-chairs.


>>>> I am baffled that Jordi is already making a suggestion on how

>>>> to proceed

>>>> to get new Co-Chairs. When the recommendations of the Recall

>>>> Committee

>>>> has not being assented to. Though, I don't know who is to

>>>> approve the

>>>> recommendations of the committee.


>>>> Hence, the response of Jordi is not tenable here, since I have

>>>> not seen

>>>> any declaration that, we don't have co-chairs. I am aware that

>>>> the Alan

>>>> Barret led committee made recommendations, which requires

>>>> acceptance,

>>>> approval and implementation.


>>>> I am rather seeing a strange situation in the haste that is being

>>>> suggested on how to deal with the 'situation of no Co-chairs'.


>>>> I am currently studying the documents provided by the Recall

>>>> Committee,

>>>> to enable one make an appropriate comment. But, at this early

>>>> stages the

>>>> outcome of the committees report remains just recommendations.



>>>> Simply,


>>>> Daniel




>>>> On 08/02/2021 9:52 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>>>> > Hi all,

>>>> >

>>>> > We are in a very strange situation now.

>>>> >

>>>> > We have no co-chairs, we have no meetings (because the Covid)

>>>> so elections could take place.

>>>> >

>>>> > The Recall Committee suggested that the section 3.3 of the

>>>> CPM shall take effect (if the working group chair is unable to

>>>> serve his or her full term the WG may select a replacement to

>>>> serve the remainder of the term).

>>>> >

>>>> > The Recall Committee report already suggested that the PDWG

>>>> should work on this and coordinate with the board.

>>>> >

>>>> > Guys, this is our "problem" as a community. Remember that the

>>>> board is only helping the community here organizing the elections.

>>>> >

>>>> > Is not the board who choose the candidates and elects them it

>>>> is our tasks. Remember that without co-chairs, we can't advance

>>>> with our work. Who takes care of ensuring a profitable

>>>> discussion in the list for any policy proposal (and we have

>>>> many in the table), or even ensuring that there is not any

>>>> abuse or bad behavior during this period?

>>>> >

>>>> > I will like to propose a few ideas and I hope that others

>>>> also do the same. Remember that this is transition period:

>>>> >

>>>> > 1) Ask the board to choose among previous co-chairs that

>>>> already have proven experience (and hopefully they accept).

>>>> > 2) Nominate ourselves those previous co-chairs.

>>>> > 3) A combination of both 1 and 2 above (example, board

>>>> nominates one, the community another).

>>>> > 4) Instead of looking for a temporary replacement, asking the

>>>> board to organize elections in a maximum of 4-6 weeks, using

>>>> the same procedure that was prepared for the last time and

>>>> using the same electoral census.

>>>> >

>>>> > If we want to board to hear us and take a decision, we should

>>>> try to reach consensus *among us* without co-chairs. I know it

>>>> seems difficult, but I'm convinced that at difficult times,

>>>> this community will be able to work together.

>>>> >

>>>> > Eddy, I will love to hear also what you have to say, or if

>>>> the board already has worked out something, etc.

>>>> >

>>>> > Thanks in advance!

>>>> >

>>>> > 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 <mailto:RPD at>

>>>> >

>>>> <>


>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


>>>> <>



>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>> RPD at



>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at


>> --

>> Regards,


>> Dewole.

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


>> <>




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

More information about the RPD mailing list