<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p>Seems the authors are actually repeating the same arguments and
points.<br>
I am instead putting the many reasons election by consensus is not
feasible, specially in this scenario we are going through
currently.<br>
</p>
<p>What doubt you have about this position regardless the RIR or
region ? Perhaps you should read the messages again.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/08/2020 10:31, Marcus K. G.
Adomey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AM4PR0101MB226055867E92B326EBAA99D8B9530@AM4PR0101MB2260.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi Fernando,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you for your reaction but it appears you are not
discussing but repeating yourself with no value add.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to find out whether you agree that the
election by consent is used by working groups in RIPE region?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Marcus</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;
font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Fernando Frediani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 28, 2020 7:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group
(WG) Guidelines and Procedures</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span
style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText">Hello<br>
<br>
If we are having all this trouble to define the next
elections probably <br>
because there are multiple people interested in the next
elections, how <br>
can we dream about any consensus ?<br>
<br>
Consensus is for proposals, for a collaborative
improving process that <br>
may take months or even more than an year, not for
electing people.<br>
What is the fear to have a proper vote process ? 1
person 1 vote and the <br>
candidate with most votes wins and servers the term.
What can go wrong ?<br>
When one is elected with most votes and there are no
signals of fraud <br>
there is no room for disputes and discussions.<br>
<br>
Qualified people are people who effectively participate
in the <br>
construction of the process, who are truly part of it
and have <br>
commitment to it and not someone who is just passing in
front of the <br>
door once in a lifetime.<br>
<br>
Afrinic PDP doesn't even have yet the possibility the
Board to appoint <br>
interim Co-Chairs when necessary.<br>
<br>
Fernando<br>
<br>
On 28/08/2020 15:16, ALAIN AINA via RPD wrote:<br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> Below are our responses to last comments received
on list on this proposal.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ###### Comment 1<br>
> Elections by consent is not for real world.<br>
> #######<br>
><br>
> It does work for working groups chairs selection in
RIPE region<br>
><br>
> ##### Comment 2<br>
> It's just something too utopic.<br>
> #######<br>
><br>
> As utopic as how “rough consensus” appear until
you experiment it and cherish<br>
><br>
> ###### Comment3<br>
> Election by vote where qualified people (with
minimal requirements) vote and the candidate with the
highest votes win, works in most places in the world
with less margin for further disputes<br>
> ######<br>
><br>
> there are many models of elections with different
ways of qualifying voters, determining the winners,
etc....<br>
> What you described is just one the them. Not one
fits all.<br>
><br>
> Each region adopts the best model for its PDP and
how chairs/lead for the PDP activities are selected.<br>
> <a
href="https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/rir-comparison-table/"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/chair-elections/rir-comparison-table/</a><br>
><br>
> One can see for example that in the case of LACNIC
where, there is an electronic votes by those subscribed
to the policy mailing list, the elections results “must”
be ratified by consensus among those present at the PPM
as judged by the acting chairs. If results can’t be
rectified, board appoint an interim chair.<br>
><br>
> The AFRINIC PDPWG adopted in the past the model
of votes by those physical present at the PPM, until it
showed its limit recently.<br>
><br>
> Can you please elaborate on how the “qualified
people” should be selected in the context the PDPWG for
the online voting and how to prevent abuse and further
disputes?<br>
><br>
><br>
> HTH<br>
><br>
> —Alain<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>