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

[Daniel Yakmut]

Dear Jaco,

I understand you clearly, but if you will recall I was vehement that we 
do not select co-chairs to conclude the tenure of the recalled chairs, 
but no one was agreeing to this then. The fact as you rightly said, it 
does not make sense for anyone to serve for just 2 months or there about.

I am now wondering, how we all woke to that reality. However, if we 
wanted to have the co-chairs serve out the tenure of 1yr and 2yrs 
alternating, I had advocated we conduct the selection/election following 
the procedures we had in our CPM. Again this thought was not regarded.

Therefore, we conducted a selection with a hidden agenda to give them an 
elongated tenure as against the communication by the PWDG Secretariat at 
the start of the process. That publication is still subsisting, that 
"the Co-Chairs to be selected will serve the remaining tenure of the 
recalled Co-Chairs".

I also envisaged we will find ourselves in this position, that was why I 
advocated that we have temporary co-chairs to handle a short transition, 
and this could have allowed us to carry out a selection process that 
will be void of the current nomination issues.

I am just reemphasizing the facts and we should note that going forward.

Simply,

Daniel

On 09/04/2021 1:45 pm, Jaco Kroon wrote:

> Hi Daniel,

>

> Do note that I've actually made two distinct proposals.

>

> Firstly, that we accept Vincent and Darwin as the two replacement

> chairs.  I understand you're in agreement with this.  The question is

> who is for which period, of course, if we can't agree on this, then we

> can delegate that to the PPM as per below.

>

> What you disagree with is the secondary proposal that we do this with an

> effective one year and two year term as of right now?  Or more

> precisely, you're warning that this could set a dangerous precedent for

> future in case we do recall our chairs again.  I cannot argue with that,

> but I must point out that I think the risk of that is fairly low.

>

> I do agree that the second proposal is strictly speaking a deviation

> from the process.  And this will contradict 3.3 of the CPM which

> (amongst others) state:

>

> "The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public

> Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms."

>

> I'm of the opinion though that with the consensus so far there are not

> any real objections to deviation from this process, obviously with the

> understanding that this is exceptional circumstances, and can thus be

> considered an emergency, as such, 3.6 of the CPM in my (not a lawyer)

> opinion is applicable.

>

> 1.  The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.

>

> Which is the problem ("emergency") we're trying to rectify.  I can

> motivate (point 2 below) deviation from this deviation of process by the

> fact that we don't have chairs currently to vary the process, and as

> such the only option we have to vary the process is by way of consensus

> which is what I think we have.

>

> 2.  There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.

>

> I think we can all agree that the variation is required because without

> any co-chairs we are stuck / dead in the water / unable to proceed.

> This applies to both my proposals.

>

> Regarding the second proposal I think we can all agree that it doesn't

> make sense to have someone serve just for a single month (or two even),

> and that for the sake of continuity it makes much more sense to just

> appoint for 1 year and 2 years respectively as of now.

>

> 3.  The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than

> four weeks.

>

> We don't have four weeks if we're going to give any time at all for the

> chairs to prepare for the PPM.  My opinion is thus that we give until

> say Monday non 12:00 GMT+2 (~average time zone for Africa which

> according to

> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=time+zones+for+africa

> varies from GMT+1 to GMT+3).  Again, this is a motivation as per point 2

> as to why we can't wait for four weeks.

>

> 4.  If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be

> presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

>

> I do believe that we have consensus so on both proposals.  I've not seen

> objections so far, although some people have commented my process of how

> I chose the two candidates and specifically how I eliminated candidates

> (1), (2) and (6).

>

> I do think it's important that ratification of this be the first point

> on the agenda at the PPM, and if rejected, then at that point we select

> a new two-year chair, and then assuming that this was neither Vincent

> nor Darwin, we choose from between them which of the two will serve the

> other year.

>

> It would be unfortunate then if one of them end up only serving a month

> or two, but that's the way of it.

>

> Either way, I think we can all agree that this is a one-time deviation

> from the process under extremely difficult circumstances, and that a new

> policy around this situation should be formed as soon as possible in

> order to avoid using this in future as precedent, although, this

> unprecedented circumstances could be used to shape the policy (for

> example, if a recalled chair is replaced less than three months before

> the PPM, then that replacement shall be deemed to be the newly elected

> as at the following PPM and thus serve for a period of two years - not

> having thought through all the consequences of this simple statement

> just yet).

>

> Kind Regards,

> Jaco

>

> On 2021/04/09 14:03, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:

>

>> 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

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd