Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs closed & Way forward
yakmutd at googlemail.com
Fri Apr 9 11:05:05 UTC 2021
I am not totally in disagreement with the proposal of Jaco. But, I want
to draw our attention to the following:
1. We started this conversation and process with a clear intend to
select/elect co-chairs to complete the tenure of the recalled
co-chairs., Therefore where did we deviate from the original intend.
2. By the Jaco's proposal, we are now saying that we can be changing
rules as we go on, let us remember that we are setting a precedent.
3. I don't want to believe that some members of the community have seen
that their favorites have emerged as possible candidates for the
co-chairs and now want to give them elongated tenure.
4. We have now introduce a new word in our actions "inconsistency".
I will rather support that we stick to the original intend, until we
make amends from the lessons learnt. Rules do not change in a middle of
a game, similarly goalposts are not shifted when the football game is
Let us reflect on this, as some of us will keep record of what
transpired now, will hopefully remind the community at the appropriate
On 08/04/2021 8:I52 pm, Frank Habicht wrote:
> Dear all,
> I fully support Jaco's proposal.
> [note: I'm biased, seconder of Vincent]
> 1. the PDWG has the power to do this.
> 2. the PDWG has the need to select chairs rather sooner than later.
> AfriNIC staff are (rightly) staying out of regulating the PDWG.
> As a result there was a [my opinion] low signal/noise ratio - just ask
> yourself how many emails were taking us forward.
> Yes, it's a democracy, and everyone can voice their concerns.
> But there is also a time for decisions, and the WG should not stay
> "without head" for any longer, in my opinion.
> The fact that I didn't post in a while is possibly because there wasn't
> a useful email like Jaco's during that time. Thank you Jaco.
> [fun fact: I know him *only* from this public mailing list, i think]
> I was shocked when I saw that a just-recalled co-chair was running for
> the same position again [though theoretically i see Owen's point that
> they should be allowed to do so]. If Abdulkarim had posted the email(s)
> to the board for ratification, I would have more faith than I have now.
> In other words [and to be clear, even if it hurts]: I really hope we
> will have different co-chairs than the previous ones.
> I am very happy that (per Mark Elkins' email) both Darwin and Vincent
> have voiced their agreement.
> I propose we go ahead with this as WG consensus.
> Frank Habicht
> On 08/04/2021 19:16, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> Given that we've repeatedly stated that there should be a nominator and
>> a seconder for all nominations, this means we only really received 3
>> nominations (3,4,5 below).
>> Given that Abulkarim (4) was one of the co-chairs removed by the recall
>> committee, and there has been controversy around the previous co-chairs,
>> in my opinion we only really have two candidates.
>> And both of these candidates seems to be good choices. From Vincent's
>> (3) nomination, by Barry:
>> "Vincent is an outstanding person for the PDWG as he was the first
>> co-chair of the same back in the days. we need to bring back the
>> fundamental values and hence i nominate him"
>> I could not agree more about bringing back the fundamentals, and plainly
>> Vincent has experience in a co-chair position that we desperately need
>> at this point in time.
>> Regarding Darwin (5), I've gone back and read a fair number of his
>> emails over the last year or so, and Darwin in my opinion has a level
>> head, the ability to reason and understand as well. I could not find a
>> single example of him being involved personally in a controversy in
>> spite of him providing his opinion on a number of topics.
>> I would thus like to make two proposals.
>> 1. We select the two candidates as above, in my opinion with Vincent in
>> the two-year tenure and Darwin in the one year tenure. By consensus if
>> 2. Given that the next meeting is two months from now, I would like to
>> propose that we measure these tenures as from "this year" such that the
>> effective tenures will be one and two years respectively from now, and
>> not "puppet" and "one year" effectively.
>> Kind Regards,
>> On 2021/04/08 16:26, AFRINIC Policy Liaison wrote:
>>> Dear Colleagues
>>> As mentioned in our email on 7 April 2021, AFRINIC as Secretariat had
>>> started the process of contacting the nominators that were mentioned
>>> in the nomination forms of the candidates . The update feedback
>>> received is as follows:-
>>> Wijdane Goubi - Nominator did not approve as per email received
>>> Anthony Ikechukwu Ubah - Nominator did not approve as per email
>>> Vincent Ngundi - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per email
>>> Adbulkarim Oloyede - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per
>>> email received
>>> Darwin da Costa - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per email
>>> Elvis Ibeanusi - Nominator approved as per email received
>>> AFRINIC Policy Liaison.
>>> t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w:www.afrinic.net
>>> facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD