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

[rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs closed & Way forward

lucilla fornaro lucillafornarosawamoto at
Fri Apr 9 12:53:35 UTC 2021

Hi Frank,

By not allowing them to run as candidates we do are limiting access to a fewer number of people. Eventually, Wijdane and Anthony fixed the mistake. Wijdane explained there was a misunderstanding, which in my opinion is reasonable.

Da: Frank Habicht <geier at>
Inviato: venerdì, aprile 9, 2021 9:03 PM
A: rpd at
Oggetto: Re: [rpd] Call for interest for PDWG chairs closed & Way forward


On 09/04/2021 13:04, lucilla fornaro wrote:


> Dear Community,


> As far as I understood both Anthony and Wijdane had no clue there were

> some issues related to their nomination.

This is what I read from AfriNIC Policy Liaison:
In regard to the nominee, Wijdane Goubi, kindly note that on the 5th
of April 2021, AFRINIC has been informed by an email sent from the
designated nominator on the nomination paper that the latter never
provided its support to the said nomination.

It was very obviously not the stated nominator who submitted the nomination.

> It is not their fault.

Can I ask who submitted the nomination..... ?

> If

> promptly notified, they would have edited it before the nomination

> deadline.

> I honestly don't understand why we should disqualify them for this. Once

> notified, they have immediately solved the issue.

> It is an open election, there is no need to be so strict about it.

"We should always follow the procedures stated in
the CPM, not only when it is more convenient for us."

> Not

> to mention that it seems like we are restricting access to a limited

> number of people, which is unfair and goes against the principle of

> openness and inclusiveness.

I have not seen anywhere any limit to the number of candidates.
There would have been one more, if you or someone (self-)nominated you.



> Lucilla


> Il giorno ven 9 apr 2021 alle ore 19:02 Mike Silber

> <silber.mike at <mailto:silber.mike at>> ha scritto:


> Thanks Jaco


> Adbulkarim has since withdrawn his nomination.


> Accordingly we seem to have two valid candidates for co-chair.


> I have worked with Vincent previously and agree with the views

> expressed regarding his capabilities.


> I have not worked with Darwin, however I have been impressed with

> his clarity of thought and his civility on this list. I think that

> he can bring the fresh outlook some have been requesting - while

> working with a seasoned colleague.


> It seems to me that we have arrived at a consensus and I fully

> support Vincent and Darwin as co-chairs.


> I also support your proposal regarding term and tenure.


> Regards


> Mike



>> On 8 Apr 2021, at 18:16, Jaco Kroon <jaco at

>> <mailto:jaco at>> 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


>> O

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


> <>



> _______________________________________________

> 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