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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

While I’m ok with 6, I think this is clearly a basic point for any participant, not just candidates, because the AUP or CoC or whatever you want to call it, right?

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 19/2/21 8:54, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com> escribió:

 

I am OK with Noah's trajectory, proposition, and Mike's modification. 

Slight edit in 4. "which is am AFRINIC resource members" should read "who is an AFRINIC resource member" 

I also think we should add ... 

6. Ability to remain calm in the face of provocation and respect for the continental diversity. 

Sunday.

On 2/19/21 7:38 AM, Mike Silber wrote:

Thanks Noah 

 

I think that is an excellent list.

 

The only thing I would add to your point 5 is an intangible quality - a history (or perception) of building consensus. Some of us understand RFC 7282, but because of our passion, style or language are less successful (or perceived as less successful) at moving the group towards consensus.

 

Regards 

 

Mike

 

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 at 07:54, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

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.

 

Cheers

Noah

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd



_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210219/d3cfd477/attachment-0001.html>