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

[rpd] AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chair Selection Timeframe

Owen DeLong owen at
Wed May 11 23:57:18 UTC 2022

> On May 11, 2022, at 12:33, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> wrote:
> Le mer. 4 mai 2022 à 23:37, Owen DeLong <owen at <mailto:owen at>> a écrit :
> > On May 2, 2022, at 16:44, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at <mailto:amelnaud at>> wrote:
> > 
> > Owen,
> > It is weird that you dismissed my claim on Kampala, but referred to what happened in Dakar and Nairobi where according to you the outcomes were in my favor. 
> How or why is it weird? I’m pointing out that the precedent was established well before Kampala and you neglected to mention those earlier meetings.
> > Your forgot to mention  Lusaka, Tunisia, Gaborone. Etc. as we’ve been selecting cochairs by show of hands of participants in the room and the outcomes were probably in favor of somebody.
> I did not forget them, but I wasn’t at Gaborone, so cannot comment from experience. As to Lusaka and Tunisia, I don’t recall the phenomenon you described being at issue in either of those cases.
> > Your role and that of your employer in what happened in Kampala and what the PDP became post Kampala are in public domain.
> Yes, we were quite open about what we were doing in bringing in young IT students to help train them on Internet governance and get them involved in the process. We intended it to be public.
> This in contrast to the much less public domain importation of hair dressers and the like in Dakar and Nairobi where there was clearly no beneficial intent other than to drive some less than above board agenda.
> Thanks for acknowledging how it happened in Kampala. The young IT  students freshly trained on IG qualified to vote to select cochair for a RIR PDP and followed your agenda as you admitted.

I said nothing about following our agenda or voting in concert… To the best of my knowledge, the students were given the information in the packet which was discussed on the list and nothing else.

> Let leave this to the WG participants to make their  own opinion…

To the best of my knowledge, all of the fellows we sponsored were left to make their own opinion and the information and training provided to them was fair and unbiased focused primarily on facts and fair summaries of the list debate that had occurred prior to the meetings. Indeed, even our opponents admitted that the information packet was not biased.

> The most curious thing for me at least is your insistance to continue with a process which is broken, has shown  its limit, compromises the reputation of the PDP and  divise  the  WG.

I don’t agree with your conclusions here.

> I refuse to be at fault…

But you are.

> I will just stop here…

That would be a refreshing change, but I have little confidence in you following through.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list