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

[rpd] Policy Development Working Group co-Chairs selection

Sylvain Baya abscoco at
Wed Apr 14 15:02:46 UTC 2021

Dear PDWG,
...anyone with a new DPP? :-)

Le lun. 12 avr. 2021 17:06, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at> a
écrit :

> Dear Jordi.


> I am a man of reason.


Hi Daniel,
Thanks for your email, brother! reasonable output i'm proud of this
PDWG for is because of its now proven ability
to build rough consensus *without Chairs*. Thus
has been the selection of the PDWG's *interim*
Chairs; in full transparency while following
essentially its PDP...good and fallacious issues
were raised and fortunately we ended up with all
them being well addressed...that's how rough
consensus works...and anyone who took part of this
wonderful part of this demonstration should
be proud imho...

But, I don't appreciate being cajoled. I agree that we could have, from

> onset agree that we are selecting new co-chairs to start on a clean slate.


Question: what's the new issue you are raising?

...please could you consider this [1] email where i shared my understanding
of the situation and how responsibilities should be shared (between the
PDWG and the AFRINIC's BoD), according to the PDP and the Bylaws.
[1]: <>

I disagree with the statement that they are completing a tenure and in the

> same vein mutating to start a new tenure.


You seems to describe a normal situation.
This is how i understand what happened:

•0| ...
•1| The PDWG was reviewing the candidacies
•2| the goal was still to *select* two *interim*
PDWG's Chairs;
•3| suddently a participant sent a *varying*
proposal, where the PDWG has the opportunity
to address an other issue he raised. The first
version of that *varying* proposal was not fair,
because it was proposing to exclude one candidacy
through a forged criterion not part of the consensual
list of criteria adopted to handle that selection...
•4| the issue was raised [2] and explained ; then
in reclusing himself as a candidate, the recalled
PDWG's Chair resolved the the *varying*
proposal becomes considering
it as dealing *separately*, so two unrelated branches
•5| with the First branch being about the *interim's* mandate and
•6| the second branch being its extensionability...
•7| where both of the two branches of that
*varying* proposal reached a rough consensus...
due to the very nature of the issues raised...
•6| ...issues all well addressed!
•7| where the consensus on the first branch was in compliance with the PDP;
•8| the second one was not; thus that was raised.
•9| To help the PDWG to implement its consensual decision, the BoD decided
to enforce it Bylaws prerogative to *varying* the process. Fiating the
extensibility of the mandate of the two *interim* PDWG's Chairs.
•10| Right now we have two new PDWG's Chairs to administer the WG
•11| ...

...apart the fact that this PDWG appeared to be a mature WG; i note the
intervention of the BoD acting only to render possible the implementation
of a consensus emerged from the WG.

...imho, there is a problem only when the
BoD decide to *varying* the process only
to bypass the PDWG...everytime they'll
decide to do it to help the PDWG, in its
*consensus*, it should always be a
welcomed action from the BoD.

If you will recall, for emphasis sake, I suggested that what we are doing

> should be on a clean slate, however it was ignored.


...imho, as times change, it's a good thing
that you were right *alone*, at some step and
it's also good that the rest of the PDWG recognised,
a step further, that your observation was founded.

What's the problem now? :-/

Surprisingly, it was suddenly introduced after the selections was done. *That

> is my grouse*.

>, again when you review what
happened you see that things have evolved would have been the one who
decided to propose that *varying* proposal...
but for that, you had to keep a bit of constancy...
don't you think so?

My suggestion is that the Board and AfriNIC Secretariat should re-frame

> their affirmation and summaries to capture that the PWDG had selected two

> co-chairs on a consensus to start new tenure. This is on the condition that

> the records shows that this was what actually transpired.


...please see my personal notes, above, on a
storyfied view of the facts.

Let me know if it satisfy you.

Adding to the learning: We must be consistent and implicit always with our

> intentions and goals.



...i don't get your point here, brother :-/
Could you, please, clarify it to me?

Blessed wednesday!


> Simply


> Daniel

> On 12/04/2021 4:31 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:


> Hi Daniel,


> *[...]*


> [...]



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

More information about the RPD mailing list