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

[rpd] Criteria for Eligibility or Selection of PDWG Co-Chairs

Fri Feb 19 08:47:52 UTC 2021

Hi Noah,

Now, you are doing exactly the same that you complained I did. Surprising!

Setting a criterion without a policy proposal and the subsequent PDP process is *against the PDP*.

Nevertheless, if this is the path that the PDWG prefer, because this is about consensus, I agree.

I will like to change the priority (make it a bit shorter also), add something but take something out:

Understanding of RFC7282.
Not being author of any of the actual policy proposals in discussion.
Active (not just reading emails) participation in PDWG. I think 2 years is good enough.
Clear understanding of CPM/PDP.
At least 3 years of experience in networking.

Asking to be a member is discriminatory. If we add that, it should a “wish”, but never excluding. I see folks that I believe aren’t members and are contributing actively and their rationales are very logic.

I think they should also commit, to ask help to staff or external experts when they don’t have knowledge in any specific topic before taking decisions and ensure that they are engaged with the participant discussions to clarify their position before going to take a decision “on-site” in the meeting.




El 19/2/21 6:56, "Noah" <noah at> escribió:

Hi PDWG participants,

Could we as a WG participants agree on a set of criteria for a WG participant to become a co-chair.

This I believe is more important and I had shared some few ideas below a separate thread but I think it would make sense to work this out on this new thread.

Some thoughts that crossed my mind as criteria;

1. Active participation in WG discussions by a participant, in say, the past 3 years.

2. Participant should demonstrate a clear understanding of the CPM and especially sections that relate to the PDWG.

3. Participant should have some 5 years sound technical experience in this space with a clear understanding of Internet Protocol and preferably having worked in this space.

4. Affiliation with an entity which is am AFRINIC resource members could come in handy for a participant interested in chairing policy discussions.

5. Understanding of rfc7282 and what rough consensus and consensus is all about, after all consensus is a path and not a destination. This is very important.

Other participants in this WG can also add and we see what criteria are more required and which ones to discard to keep it simple.

I stand to be corrected but I think we as a WG have an obligation to first sort this requirements out before we can think of the selection of the interim co-chairs.



_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at

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.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list