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

[rpd] AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair Selection Timeframe

Sylvain Baya abscoco at
Wed Apr 27 20:48:23 UTC 2022

Dear PDWG,
Please see my comments below, inline...

Le mardi 26 avril 2022, Owen DeLong <owen at> a écrit :

>>> *The eligibility criteria that the community had agreed on for the
>>> selection of the current co-chairs in 2021 are as follows:- 1. 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. 2. 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); 3. 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; 4. 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; 5. The intended volunteer must have
>>> sufficient capability of understanding and interpreting the contents of
>>> AFRINIC’s Consolidated Policy Manual; 6. 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 7. 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. 8. The intended volunteer must
>>> either reside within or originate from  AFRINIC’s service region; 9. The
>>> intended volunteer must be able to demonstrate excellent presentation and
>>> communication skills.  10. The intended volunteer must be endorsed and/or
>>> nominated by a registered contact of an  AFRINIC Resource Member 11. 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.
Hi Owen,
Thanks for replying, brother!

> FWIW, I continue to question the following:
> A: Who and how will this be judged in a candidate?

Do you really think it impossible to check?
* who? any group of volunteers designated to do
the job.
* how? a simple interview may be sufficient.

> C: Who decides what constitutes “sufficient” or “active”? What is the
> definition of these terms in this context?

Who decides what? a designated vetting team...
imho, NomCom, for instance, can do that job...even
 the Staff :-/
...don't you think?

What's the definition of *sufficient*?

"From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 :

  77 Moby Thesaurus words for "sufficient":
     OK, acceptable, adequacy, adequate, admissible, agreeable,
     all right, ample, authoritative, barely sufficient,
      *better than nothing*, binding, cogent, comfortable, commensurable,
     commensurate, common, competence, competent, consistent,
     corresponding, decent, due, *enough*, equal to, fair,
     fair to middling, fairish, fit, good, good enough, goodish, just,
     lawful, legal, legitimate, logical, minimal, minimum, moderate,
     not amiss, not bad, not half bad, not so bad, okay, passable,
     pleasing, plenteous, plentiful, plenty, plenty good enough,
     presentable, *pretty good*, proportionable, proportionate,
     respectable, satisfactory, satisfying, self-consistent, solid,
     sound, substantial, sufficiency, sufficient for, sufficing,
      *suitable*, tidy, tolerable, unexceptionable, unexceptional,
     unobjectionable, up to, valid, weighty, well-founded,
     well-grounded, workmanlike

Feel free to choose one, please.

E: Same questions as C.
> it not an implementation question?
Why do you need to know who and how?

Do you want to amend the Criteria, by proposing a
 clarification in these who & how questions?

> F: What kind of advantage? Do they get some extra votes added to their
> tally? What does this criteria mean in practical application?

What practical advantage? i consider this criterion
as one of those which could become really useful
when it comes to shortening the candidacy list.

Extra votes? The proposed selection type appears
to not yet be a kind of election...

> G: This is a long way of saying “The candidate should recuse himself from
> any conflicts of interest.”
...i agree :-)

> The need to spell this out speaks volumes about
> the current situations in AFRINIC.
> my humble experience, criterion G recalls me
more one of the reason why for the first time in the
history of the PDWG, the two active Chairs were

> H: Does this mean that every person in the US of African descent is
> eligible as PDWG co-chair?
Is this criterion not clear enough?

> One can make an anthropological argument that all human
> kind “originated from” AFRINIC’s service region.
"Bad faith"? or with an evidence... :-/

> What is the actual intended meaning here? Let us please plainly say what
> we mean.
Owen, if you have a better wording, please feel free
 to propose your working version...

> After all, failure
> to do so (and/or failure to follow what we said) is a key factor in
> multiple current litigations.

...i'm waiting your proposition, brother :-/

> I: Please define “excellent” in this context.
>, already, has workable definition...imho,
implementers should just pick one to use.

> J: This violates the CPM.
...unless a PDWG's Chair decides to use its power.

> Further, calling this person “the intended volunteer” is absurd.
It's a simple choice of wording!
Qualifying it as "absurd" is not appropriate, imho...
...the intent was to recruit/select *volunteers*.

> These are “candidates” for an elected position (or at least nominees). We
> should refer to them as such (either candidates or nominees).

...i could support the change to either nominees or candidates! but don't
forget that the intent is not to
 *elect* a PDWG's Chair but to conduct its selection
 by consensus first.


> Owen


Best Regards !
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<>
Subscribe to 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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list