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

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

Sylvain Baya abscoco at
Fri Feb 19 18:16:12 UTC 2021

Dear PDWG,

Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 13:20, Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at> a
écrit :

> Hello Noah,


Hi Anthony,

Brother, thanks for freely expressing your view.

> This is an interesting list of criteria, but I'll have to disagree with

> them in this case.


...if you disagree with those *criteria* under
discussion; you are either free to:

•opt1| amend them at your will; or
•opt2| propose a completely different set of
acceptable ones;
•opt3| call the PDWG to stop the entire process [1];
•opt4| only complain;
•opt5| keep quiet and leave the others find/define
the way forward by consensus;
•opt6| mix some of the above.
•opt7| do something different to all the above.

I'll narrow my reason down to one thing, and that is, this directly

> contravenes the AfriNIC (PDWG) Election Process. Also, nothing in the CPM

> clearly prevents any member of the community from voting.


...yes! BtW, the CPM section 3.3 has been
considered as the source of the sole PDP
obligations this PDWG needs to choose a
replacement to its recalled Chairs. Is that process [1]
non PDP compliant? How/Why?

> Under the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG), Election Process, (



...if you want the PDWG to use this *selection*
method; then you are for proposition 1| (see [2]) or [C] (see [3]).

it states thus;


> *3) Candidate Eligibility*

>> The candidate must:


>> 1. Be a natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC service

>> region.

>> 2. Not be a staff of AFRINIC or any other Regional Internet Registry

>> (RIR).



Yes! criteria are not a new thing for this PDWG.

...i see that the (PDWG) Election Committee's (EC)
criteria for both candidates [section 3)] and
voters [section 4)] are non PDP compliant
and discrimatory.

> An election is slated to be open and fair, thus should be no criteria

> contrary to those of the CPM, which is our guide. Kindly note that only a

> policy can effect changes otherwise.


...while it's obvious that a new DPP could help
to clarify both the method of *selection*, the
*criteria* and maybe the PDWG EC *directives*,
but at this time this PDWG has the right to
choose a method of *selection* in order to
proceed to the sole task allowed without its
Chairs : 'replacing the recalled PDWG's Chairs
by the *selection* method adopted by consensus.'

...any substantive objections to the full process [1]?

> So basically, we need to promote the idea of an open election and fair

> elections, thus none’s rights should be stifled. Any candidate willing to

> volunteer to run for a chair should be allowed to exercise his/her rights

> to do so.


...but, we should not try to do it out of our own PDP [4].

> On a final note, you have just played the same role which you have

> criticized Jordi for, what goes around does come around.

>'s not the same! as i have already provide
an explanation here [5]; the goal matters!
where one was not PDP compliant, the other is clearly.

Thanks again, brother.
[1]: <>
[2]: <>
[3]: <>
[4]: <>
[5]: <>


*Best Regards,*





> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 6:54 AM Noah <noah at> 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.


>> [...]




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

More information about the RPD mailing list