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

[rpd] Policy Development Working Group co-Chairs selection

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Apr 13 17:46:03 UTC 2021

> On Apr 12, 2021, at 08:31 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at> wrote:


> Hi Daniel,


> From a realistic and practical standpoint, do you think it makes sense to have selected co-chairs for the next PPM and at the same time start a new selection, that takes a lot of resources, and makes difficult to keep discussing policy proposals in the list, which are much needed after the horrible decisions taken in the last two years?

Whether it makes sense or not, it is what is required by the rules as they currently exist.

If the PDWG wishes, it doesn’t have to take a lot of resources… We can, as a PDWG, come to consensus to extend the co-chair’s terms at the next meeting and that satisfies the requirement that we “select the co-chairs” at the meeting.

OTOH, if there is not consensus to do that, then there must be some reason and we therefore owe it to ourselves as a community to undertake a proper and complete selection process.

FWIW, I am not opposed to consensus around such an extension. However, I am opposed to departing from the rules and arbitrarily simply declaring that their terms are extended at this time.

> Just look at the number of policy proposals and how badly the lack of consensus decision for non-justified objections, ruined them. Even if you agree/disagree with those decisions, just read carefully the recall results, and read also the Appeal Committee minutes, and look to how two different of groups of people can clash in the interpretation of the PDP, including the point that the AC believes that the judgment needs to be done only which what happen in the meeting, while always we have been told that the list is part of the decision …

I have read all.. It seems to me that most of our problems stem from our failures to follow the policies, rules, bylaws, etc. in the past and that if we arbitrarily extend the new co-chair’s terms by some fiat here rather than by consensus taken at the next meeting, we are repeating the same kind of mistakes that got us here in the first place.

> Further to that, if there have been no other qualified candidates now, do you think they will magically appear in the next month, for a new selection?

Who can say, but there is no valid reason under the current policies or bylaws to preclude such an opportunity.

> Do you think that if some candidates clearly attempted to commit fraud (by themselves or whom brokered their nomination), should be allowed to participate as candidates again?

It’s not clear to me what fraction of the problem was attributable to fraud vs. confusion. As such, I agree with their disqualification as they failed to follow the process, but absent clear evidence of intentional fraud, I’m hesitant to disenfranchise them in general.

> What about the “new” increase in subscriptions to the list from the same residential IP addresses? How many folks in each household, you can believe to be participating with knowledge at the PDP discussions?

These should be investigated and I don’t have a problem with excluding suspicious recent subscriptions from voting if the investigation yields valid suspicions or cannot find a valid explanation.

> I think there are sufficient arguments to ensure that there is at least 2 years of stability and healing, at least until we can define a better way to handle the elections and AFRINIC can ensure that 1 participant is only 1 email and not being used as puppets.

I don’t entirely disagree, but there’s no basis for just doing it in the rules as they exist today, so we must at the very least delay any such decision until the meeting and then only if there is consensus within the working group to do so.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list