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

[rpd] AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair Selection Timeframe

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Apr 26 16:49:32 UTC 2022

> The eligibility criteria that the community had agreed on for the selection of the current co-chairs in 2021 are as follows:-
> The intended volunteer must be well conversant with AFRINIC’s consensus-driven ecosystem, including its Policy Development Process; practical understanding of RFC 7282 is required.
> The intended volunteer must be accessible and make himself or herself available to follow and moderate all policy proposal discussions on AFRINIC’s rpd mailing list as well as attending AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings whenever they are held (Note: All logistical assistance will be provided by AFRINIC);
> The intended volunteer must have at least 3 years of sufficient past and active participative experience on either AFRINIC’s or any other RIR’s policy development mailing list;
> The Intended volunteer must have participated in at least two (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (face-to-face or virtual) in the past three (3) years;
> The intended volunteer must have sufficient capability of understanding and interpreting the contents of AFRINIC’s Consolidated Policy Manual;
> The intended volunteer must be able to demonstrate good technical knowledge and understanding of the Internet ecosystem. Having 3 to 5 years of  Internet Protocol related technical experience would be an advantage
> The intended volunteer should  not be the author of any of the policy proposals currently under  discussion and if need be, or agree to recuse oneself as author/co-author of any policy proposals under discussion, or simply recuse oneself from the position as Co-Chairs pending step down temporarily as co-chair when his or her proposal being is being discussed.
> The intended volunteer must either reside within or originate from  AFRINIC’s service region;
> The intended volunteer must be able to demonstrate excellent presentation and communication skills. 
> The intended volunteer must be endorsed and/or nominated by a registered contact of an  AFRINIC Resource Member
> The intended volunteer must not be a staff of AFRINIC or any other Regional Internet Registry (RIR)

I agree that the history is worth a read.

FWIW, I continue to question the following:

	A: Who and how will this be judged in a candidate?
	C: Who decides what constitutes “sufficient” or “active”? What is the definition of these terms in this context?
	E: Same questions as C.
	F: What kind of advantage? Do they get some extra votes added to their tally? What does this criteria mean in practical application?
	G: This is a long way of saying “The candidate should recuse himself from any conflicts of interest.” The need to spell this out speaks volumes about
		the current situations in AFRINIC.
	H: Does this mean that every person in the US of African descent is eligible as PDWG co-chair? One can make an anthropological argument that all human
		kind “originated from” AFRINIC’s service region. What is the actual intended meaning here? Let us please plainly say what we mean. After all, failure
		to do so (and/or failure to follow what we said) is a key factor in multiple current litigations.
	I: Please define “excellent” in this context.
	J: This violates the CPM.

Further, calling this person “the intended volunteer” is absurd. These are “candidates” for an elected position (or at least nominees). We should refer to them as such (either candidates or nominees).


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

More information about the RPD mailing list