Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs closed & Way forward
Daniel Yakmut
yakmutd at googlemail.com
Fri Apr 9 12:03:13 UTC 2021
Inset
On 09/04/2021 12:30 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> We can't, following the PDP, select the co-chairs to complete the tenure of both of the recalled ones. Unless I recall the dates incorrectly, at least one of them should be re-elected by the next meeting and that means doing it already now. I may be wrong on this, just speaking from top of my head.
That was what I was asking at the onset. But the document published by
the secretariat said otherwise, It was clear that what we were to do was
to select/elect/nominate co-chairs to serve out the tenure of the
recalled co-chairs, if refer to the initial communication of the PWDG
Secretariat, you will see the intend that was to serve as the guide for
the process.
The Secretariat has not communicated new changes. Then what we are
attempting to do now is making changes on our feet. Again I want us to
agree that we are changing rules and decisions mid way.
I am sounding this, so that tomorrow, it will not be considered bad to
do that again.
> In fact, following this, one of them will be elected by the standard PDP, but will need to wait for the next meeting to take the seat. That will mean that we elect only one that need to handle alone, all the possible policy proposals. Do you really think that makes sense for a 45-50 days of difference?
>
> That's why I've proposed a "possible" policy change to address this special situation: "restart of timings when co-chairs are recalled". It is an unprecedent situation, I think we all agree on that.
Regardless of the unprecedented situation, we must learn to think
through our decisions. I will like to see a communication altering the
period for the new co-chairs. If you will notice we are conducting the
selection ahead of the commencement of their "tenure".
>
> It may happen that this policy proposal doesn't reach consensus. Then we will need to have new elections for one of them and because the timing, it will not anymore coincide with the meeting.
>
> So, in summary, I don't think we are changing the rules while flying, it is a "possible" next step in compliance with the PDP, not an inconsistency.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> El 9/4/21 13:13, "Daniel Yakmut via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
>
> 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
> going on.
>
> Let us reflect on this, as some of us will keep record of what
> transpired now, will hopefully remind the community at the appropriate
> time.
>
>
> Simply,
>
> Daniel
>
>
> 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Frank Habicht
> > ORG-WCL4-AFRINIC
> >
> > 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
> >> possible.
> >>
> >> 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,
> >> Jaco
> >>
> >> 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:-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1.
> >>>
> >>> Wijdane Goubi - Nominator did not approve as per email received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2.
> >>>
> >>> Anthony Ikechukwu Ubah - Nominator did not approve as per email
> >>> received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 3.
> >>>
> >>> Vincent Ngundi - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per email
> >>> received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 4.
> >>>
> >>> Adbulkarim Oloyede - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per
> >>> email received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 5.
> >>>
> >>> Darwin da Costa - Both nominator & Seconder approved as per email
> >>> received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 6.
> >>>
> >>> Elvis Ibeanusi - Nominator approved as per email received
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> *
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
More information about the RPD
mailing list