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

[lucilla fornaro]

Dear all,

I would like to declare my support for the candidacy of Anthony and Wijdane.

Lucilla

Il giorno sab 10 apr 2021 alle ore 09:59 Gaby Giner <
gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> ha scritto:


> Dear community,

>

> Taiwo's right. I still support Wijdane and Anthony in their bid for the

> position.

>

> Good day.

>

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 3:45 AM Uche Nwankwor, <ezigbonwankwor at gmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> I have to say I agree with taiwo, as an organization we have been through

>> alot and we are taking steps to correct them and do things right. An

>> election needs to show fairness and everyone's voice being heard. We are

>> looking forward to a new administration I'm very sure we do not want to

>> start it off by saying some candidates were dropped. So in all fairness I

>> say the two candidates  be allowed to run for the election

>>

>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 8:25 PM Taiwo Oye <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> 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

>>> <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>|cmNOG's Surveys

>>> <https://survey.cmnog.cm/>

>>> Subscribe to the cmNOG's Mailing List

>>> <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>

>>> __

>>>

>>>

>>> *#‎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

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210410/7cd314c4/attachment-0001.html>