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

[rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs

Ibeanusi Elvis ibeanusielvis at
Sat Apr 3 02:34:21 UTC 2021


The major purpose for the various disagreement with the eligibility
criteria is specifically the time and how fast everything is going with the
already set election timeline, when we already have a timeline that we can
utilize for this current election and then changes can be made to the
eligibility criteria for future events. Also, I think we should not
encourage this because this act can facilitate other instances that might
occur in the near future; the AFRINIC can come up with rules or criteria in
a short space of time, and the only option left is just to deal with it.
How can we come up with some sort of agreement within the time frame at
hand. The AFRINIC organization as well as the community is big and not a
two-man group or firm to make decisions or agree that quick.


On Apr 3, 2021, at 7:47, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

I don’t think what you have said here is a fair characterization of what
the Policy Liaison Team posted.

I don’t know if this is an issue of language (not knowing your background)
or something else, but they did not express any focus on only G and stated
“concerns with one or more criteria”.

Further, on the issue of suggesting that PDWG agree, they weren’t
specifically singling out those of us who have disagreed, they were
expressing a need for the PDWG as a whole to come up with some form of
agreement about how to handle the criteria. There’s really no other option
for them to move forward. They can’t make the decision for us and they have
to encourage the PDWG to come to agreement.

Don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of criticisms of the Policy Liaison and
AFRINIC staff in general, but in this case, it appears that they are acting
in good faith and trying to properly facilitate discussion.


On Apr 2, 2021, at 9:07 AM, Ibeanusi Elvis <ibeanusielvis at> wrote:

Dear AFRINIC Policy Liaison,

Personally, it seems to me that the AFRINIC Policy Liaison is only focused
on the Eligibility Criteria G and if you have heard, collected and
processed the feedbacks of the PDWG members as stated, first you should
notice that Criteria G is not the only one that the membership had issues
with, and those issues or concerns should be dealt with and not just saying
that the members that “the PDWG members whom objected should...agree among
themselves on the usage of the criteria so that the PDWG can establish the
best way forward and be mindful of the timelines.” Just rewording or
editing criteria G does not automatically make an impressive impact or
change everything. There are other criteria that were being objected to by
members like Criteria C and D; one of the reason is that this list of
eligibility criteria limits people from being eligible and qualified to be
nominated and to contest likewise it goes against the core values and
principles of the AFRINIC and the internet community which are: Openness,
Inclusiveness and Fairness.
Additionally, the timeline of the given for the election is too short and
very fast, seems like AFRINIC is choking the election down our throat. To
be simple, why don’t we just follow the criteria we already have in the CPM
Section 3.3?


On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 22:08 AFRINIC Policy Liaison <
policy-liaison at> wrote:


















> *Dear PDWG, The policy liaison team has shared with the PDWG members the

> latest list of criteria based on the discussions on the list here:


> <> We have heard,

> collected and processed all feedback that the PDWG members have provided on

> the list as a facilitator here is what we have taken note of: - There are

> still members of the PDWG who have raised concerns on one or more of the

> criteria. We kindly remind the PDWG members that there is still room for

> proposing amendments, introducing new criteria, or removing existing

> criteria. - Some PDWG members have objected to using the list as

> criteria for eligibility and proposed using them as guidelines for the

> selection of candidates instead. We kindly ask the PDWG members to agree

> among themselves on the usage of the criteria so that the PDWG can

> establish the best way forward and be mindful of the timelines. At the

> same time, we also encourage PDWG members interested in the co-chairs

> positions to respond to the call for interest. RegardsPolicy Liaison Team

> ……………………………………………………………. Cher PDWG, Le policy liaison team a partagé avec

> les membres du PDWG la dernière liste de critères basée sur les discussions

> de la liste ici :

> <>. Nous avons

> entendu, collecté et traité tous les commentaires que les membres du PDWG

> ont fournis sur la liste en tant que facilitateur ; voici ce dont nous

> avons pris note : Il y a encore des membres du PDWG qui ont soulevé des

> préoccupations sur un ou plusieurs critères. Nous rappelons aux membres du

> PDWG qu'il est encore possible de proposer des amendements, d'introduire de

> nouveaux critères ou de supprimer des critères existants. Certains

> membres du PDWG se sont opposés à l'utilisation de la liste de critères

> comme critères d'éligibilité et ont proposé de les utiliser plutôt comme

> lignes directrices pour la sélection des candidats. Nous demandons aux

> membres du PDWG de se mettre d'accord sur l'utilisation des critères afin

> que le PDWG puisse établir la meilleure façon de procéder et respecter les

> délais. Dans le même temps, nous encourageons également les membres du PDWG

> intéressés par les postes de coprésidents à répondre à l'appel à

> manifestation d'intérêt. *



> Nos salutations


> *Policy Liaison Team*

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



RPD mailing list
RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list