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

[Taiwo Oye]

Hi everyone. 

I am a bit confused as to where nomcom disqualified some candidates from the election race.

Is there a coalition trying to portray to the community that there are only two candidates being considered for possible election?

I have read all points trying to discredit the validity of the other nominations. But I think it is only right to see if these candidates are permitted to run for the election or not. 

Insisting on having a seconder is not stated anywhere in the CPM [1] and also I believe that omination forms can only be submitted when all compulsory fields (usually denoted by *) are filled.

An election is deemed a success if everyone is given a fair chance. I am in support of giving all candidates a voice as we await the final candidacy list from NomCom.

Kind regards. 
Taiwo

(1). https://www.google.com/amp/s/afrinic.net/policy/manual/amp




> On Apr 9, 2021, at 18:44, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> {try to move the faster possible/reasonable}

> Dear PDWG,

> 

> 

> ...as a resumé:

> 

> <tl;dr>

> i0| We have two valid candidacies : so nothing more to do. 

> They become simply the new PDWG's Chairs...if there is 

> no reasonable objection.

> 

> i1| ...to keep a good stand, in trying to use only what our PDP 

> allows us to, we should/could just leave that problem for 

> the end of the shortest mandate. The rational of this simple 

> idea lies in the flexible structure of the PDP relatively to the 

> *selection* process. Then, at that time the PDWG could 

> choose to simply agree on a suitable selection method ; if 

> there are disagreement what should be important at end 

> could be to remain fair and transparent as a WG.

> 

> i2| Could the candidates confirm their agreement?

> 

> i3| When i2| is done, the PDWG should immediatelly install 

> their new Chairs...if i'm not wrong though :-/

> </tl;dr>

> 

>> Le ven. 9 avr. 2021 à 13:46, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> a écrit :

>> Hi Daniel,

>> 

> 

> Hi Jaco,

> ...brother, many thanks for proposing new and quite interesting 

> perspectives. 

>  

>> 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.

>> 

> 

> i see no need to do so :-/

> ...the problem seems to not be too complex as the proposed 

> solution.

> 

>  

>> 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

> 

> 

> This disagreement has no real consequencies, within the actual 

> situation, because we have only two acceptable candidacies.

> 

> ...there is a practice, enshrined [2] into the PDP, which could be 

> used to resolve the question of the term by leaving it between 

> the two caditates: 

> 

> ~°~

> [...]

> A *term* may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the 

> Public Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the 

> Public Policy Meeting *as determined by the mutual agreement* 

> of the current Chair and the new Chair.

> [...]

> ~°~

> 

>  

>> 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.

>> 

> 

> ...apart the fact that there is already a DPP [*] which is trying to 

> better rule the PDWG Chairs Recall; i can add that, we should 

> only try to solve our problems step by step...

> __

> [*]: it still waiting for a "comming soon" IAR though

> <https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-007-d1>

> 

> i0| We have two valid candidacies : so nothing more to do. 

> They become simply the new PDWG's Chairs...if there is 

> no reasonable objection.

> 

> ...given that Frank has already reported that they have both 

> already agreed on the distribution of the terms of their 

> respectives mandates, could we conclude that all is OK?

> 

> ...one thing remains, how to go further than the real 

> mandates of the Recalled PDWG's Chairs?

> 

> What i propose is also quite simple:

> 

> i1| ...to keep a good stand, in trying to use only what our PDP 

> allows us to, we should/could just leave that problem for 

> the end of the shortest mandate. The rational of this simple 

> idea lies in the flexible structure of the PDP relatively to the 

> *selection* process. Then, at that time the PDWG could 

> choose to simply agree on a suitable selection method ; if 

> there are disagreement what should be important at end 

> could be to remain fair and transparent as a WG.

> 

> Please let's move forward on what we have already agreed on.

> 

> 

>> 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."

> 

> 

> ...no!

> There is not such constraint...PPM is ruled at CMP section 3.4.2 [1]

> ...also you have to look at two differents scenari; enlightened below: 

> {*interim*} and {*temporary*}

> 

> Please see below [2]:

> 

> ~°~

> 3.3  The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG)

> 

> [...]

> {*interim*} If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve 

> his or her full term, the Working Group may select a

> replacement to serve the remainder of the term. 

> {*temporary*} If the Working Group Chairs are unable 

> to attend the Public Policy Meeting, the Working Group 

> shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present 

> at the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, 

> may participate in the selection process for a temporary Chair.

> 

> ~°~

> 

> ...see as a flexible PDP [1] is helping us; as it's quite simple 

> to solve most of our problems with no PDWG Chairs and quite 

> without violating our own binding rules :-)

> __

> [1]: CPM section 3.0 <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>

> [2]: CPM section 3.3 <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG>

>  

>> 

>> 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.

> 

> 

> ...no need to bypass the PDP in trying to use CPM section 3.6, 

> without PDWG's Chairs to enforce it!

>  

>> 

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

>> 

>> [...]

>> 

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

>> 

>> [...]

>> 

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

>> four weeks.

>> 

> 

> This is why the PDWG should be really grateful of the actual 

> outcome. Then accept it for what it is really: a very good 

> opportunity to rapidly move forward with gift of two months 

> to prepare the coming PPM...

> 

>  

>> [...]

>> 

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

>> presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

>> 

> 

> There seems to be already a clear consensus on the PDWG's 

> (interim) Chairs and their respective terms. 

> 

> i2| Could the candidates confirm their agreement?

> 

> i3| When i2| is done, the PDWG should immediatelly install 

> their new Chairs...if i'm not wrong though :-/

> 

> The consensus is not needed on i1| right now; please could 

> we agree on i3|?

> 

> ...so that the PDWG could become able to immediately start 

> to focus again on DPPs, with new Chairs to jauge the consensus.

> 

> Thanks.

> 

> Shalom,

> --sb.

> 

>  

> 

>> [...]

>> 

>> 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,

>> >>

>> >>      >>>

>> >>      >>>      [...]

> 

> 

> 

> --

> 

> Best Regards !                          

> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] |cmNOG's Structure|cmNOG's Surveys

> Subscribe to the cmNOG's Mailing List

> __

> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*»

> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬

> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210409/73407b59/attachment.html>