<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">As one of the people who was advocating for a past date certain when people must be on the mailing list,</div>I wish to be clear… I have no dog in the fight over the six month requirement. I think it is a reasonable precaution against<div class="">concerns expressed by others about fraud by stacking the registration process.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, if this concern can be ignored or adequately addressed by other means, then I would not object to eliminating</div><div class="">the 6 month requirement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would like to encourage everyone to answer the following questions:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Are you concerned about having an online election stacked by some group bringing in shills? (Yes or No)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you are not concerned, you can stop here or continue as you wish.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If so, do you feel that the 6-month requirement adequately addresses this concern?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If you are concerned, do you have an alternate mechanism you feel should be used to address this concern? What is it?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think that the answers to these questions could help inform any alternatives that the staff and/or board may choose to undertake.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would also like to point out that section 3.3 does NOT state that the PDWG co-chairs are chosen by the working group.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It states that anyone participating in person or remotely is considered to be a part of the Policy Development Working Group.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It goes on to state that “The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and</div><div class="">serve staggered two-year terms.” </div><div class=""><div class=""><div><br class=""></div><div>The term “AFRNIC community” is not defined in the CPM.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I leave the interpretation of those facts and their implications to those smarter than me.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 6, 2020, at 13:46 , Emem William <<a href="mailto:dwizard65@gmail.com" class="">dwizard65@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Dear all,<div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">As Benjamin Investor and Sunday Ayuba have rightly said, there is no legitimate justification or reason for trying to disenfranchise some of the participants who subscribed to the rpd mailing list; will register and participate in the upcoming AIS '20 just because they did not subscribe to the mailing list on or before February 2020.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I urge the CEO and indeed the AFRINIC Board to look into this and ensure that the rule of law prevails and everything goes in line with the content of the AFRINIC CPM. </div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto" class="">Kind regards,<br class="">Emem William<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 17:14 Sunday Ayuba <<a href="mailto:sundayayuba8@gmail.com" class="">sundayayuba8@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Dear AFRINIC CEO,</div><div dir="auto" class="">Please can you explain to the community why you are setting the six months rule on who can vote and those who cannot vote. The CPM is very clear on who are members of the WG. It clearly states any person </div><div dir="auto" class="">I quote the CPM </div><div dir="auto" class="">" *Any person* can, participating either in person or remotely, is considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions. The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms. The term ends during the first Public Policy Meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they were appointed. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the Public Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the Public Policy Meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the current Chair and the new Chair."</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">It is only the members of the WG that determine the co chairs are. This is an abberation that some people would be dienfrinchiced based on some rules suggested by a section of the community more especially when these section are in the minority. The election rules are very also clear it is by show of hands and am sure we can do show of hands. If you know that we are ripe for an online election then we should follow the rules. Organise an online election that follows the CPM. All Members of the working group would vote by show of hands. This is very simple. It would not be acceptable to this community if AFRINIC staff are now conniving with a section of the community to deny some people thier right. Are we now trying to divide the community into old and new members now because of elections. You should be glad that more people are now participating in the community. It's a multi-stakeholder process. The more people participating the better. The bigger the community the better. We all are stakeholders in the internet Community and we all are members of the working group and we all must participate in the election</div><div dir="auto" class="">Thank you.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Regards,</div><div dir="auto" class="">Sunday Ayuba.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>