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

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

lucilla fornaro lucillafornarosawamoto at
Fri Feb 19 09:38:28 UTC 2021

I don't see why we should even discuss these criteria. I firmly object to
what you wrote!

I have the feeling that this list is becoming more and more self-oriented.
Am I wrong, or Afrinic encourage an inclusive approach, a "collaborative
environment in which people from many different backgrounds and cultures
work together for the good of the African and global Internet"?
So why are we talking about setting these kinds of criteria? They should
not exist. Asking to be a member is indeed discriminatory. There is no
other way to see it.
A solid understanding of CPM/PDP is essential, but these are basic elements
that should not be considered criteria. The other points are simply too
strict for a voluntary position. To be clear, I am not saying that long
experience is not valuable, but rather than categorizing people, we should
look for genuine commitment to serve Afrinic for the better.


Il giorno ven 19 feb 2021 alle ore 14:52 Noah <noah at> ha scritto:

> 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



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

More information about the RPD mailing list