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

[rpd] Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)

Fri Feb 19 09:57:02 UTC 2021

Passive RPD list subscribers, in my opinion, as I already indicated in the summary, has a solution:

as per Section 3.3:

“Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person. PDWG work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (rpd at and the bi-annual AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (PPM). Any person, participating either in person or remotely, is considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.”

There may be some exceptions to the closure of the electoral census, if we consider this part of the text “Any person, participating”. The PDP is not clear about if registered participants who are not participating actively (in discussions in the RPD or having participated in the mic of the previous meeting), is actually considered to be part of the PDWG. The actual text could be perfectly understood as “if you haven’t participated in discussions, showing your opinions, you’re still not a validated full member”. This could also help to avoid what we can name as “bogus voters” and at the same time, facilitate that if any new real person has joined to the RPD and participated in the discussions after the previous electoral census closure, can justify as well his/her inclusion in the electoral census.

El 19/2/21 10:28, "Noah" <noah at> escribió:

Hi Mark,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:05 PM Mark Elkins <mje at> wrote:

Ask the NomCom to ask for volunteers. Just use the templates from 2020. Have an initial cut-off after seven days.

The template could do with some new fresh ideas reference to criteria ....imho

We also need to have a system on deciding who is in for a short term and who is in for a longer term. Voting may be the simplest method (as this will all be done remotely).

Since the PDWG and its participants operate by participation, we should also give a chance to rough consensus/consensus after all voting itself is not defined in the CPM though it has been a practice in recent years.

Btw, the rpd list has subscribers who passive and are not necessarily participating in PDWG discussions. What do we think of this?


_______________________________________________ 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