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

[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

Mark Elkins mje at
Tue Feb 9 12:12:01 UTC 2021

Regarding the recall of the Co-Chairs - a line was drawn in the sand.
The Co-Chairs were found wanting and have been recalled. You can't go
back and move that line - so the recall must stand.

Regarding mailing list registrations - I really have issues when people
by the names of PorkyProtection <PorkyProtection at> and
sock-puppet-420 <sock-puppet-420 at> are able to subscribe
and write to the lists - especially if they are able to also potentially
vote. I understand that some people may require more than one email
address (Private & Company) but the two above examples show some have
taken this liberty too far. I personally think people should only be
added after some form of validation is performed. People should only be
allowed to vote from one email address (any that they have "validated")
and only after 12 months of existence according to their validation (so
they can still change email addresses and remain valid).

On 2/9/21 11:47 AM, Dewole Ajao via RPD wrote:


> 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?


> Dewole.


> 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>


>>> <>


> --

> Regards,


> Dewole.


> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list