<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/02/2021 20:46, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Feb 20, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Monaco;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"
class="">Folks, we must have a criteria.</p>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
You are unclear what you want criteria for here… There are two
categories… Voters and Candidates.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>For candidates, we have a criteria… The candidate with the
largest plurality of votes.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This criteria is objective and clear. It provides for the
candidate with support of the largest number of members of the
community.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Any other criteria are either subject in themselves or of
subjective value in eliminating potential candidates from the
choices available to the electorate.</div>
</blockquote>
Yes, and that's neeed. The criteria is for both voters and
candidates.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Monaco;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"
class="">It is always beautiful to welcome anyone without
any limits but it puts it has the potential do put the
whole thing is serious danger.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Are you saying that the electorate cannot be trusted to
choose the most qualified and most appropriate candidates? Are
you saying that you want to substitute some other group’s
judgment in front of that of the electorate? What group would
this be?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
No, I am saying two things: 1) Not everybody should be considered a
elector until he/she is qualified for that and that is pretty much
Ok. That has the potential to damage the environment for many
reasons already discussed. 2) Candidates must meet minimal criteria
like be around for sometime, and have not been recalled anytime
recentlly.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Monaco;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"
class="">There must be always a mechanism that doesn't
allow anyone to vote straight away "just for being there",
otherwise it opens doors to anyone willing to manipulate
de process. Isn't already enough the hundreds of
subscriptions there was in the last prior the last process
? Isn't that obvious there is a risk in there ?<br
class="">
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>For voters, I am perfectly willing to accept criteria on
eligibility to vote that sets a date certain prior to the
announcement of the election (possibly even as far back as the
eligibility date for the previous election in this case).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Fine we agree on that.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>There should be verification that each registered voter is
an actual and identified unique person.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Agree as well, very much.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Beyond that, there really is no valid way to reject voters.
Is that open to the possibility of sock puppets, astro
turfing, and cutouts? Yes. However, since we are talking about
a PDWG co-chair position and not a member of the board with
fiduciary responsibility, I think that’s OK. There are checks
and balances in place to deal with co-chairs that behave
inappropriately or fail to do the job. We have demonstrated
that these mechanisms work.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I would say that a Co-Chair role is not much distant from a Board
role in terms of seriousness of the subjects discussed and decided
with his/her involvement. Not only the membership by the Policy
Forum is a fundamental part of any RIR really.<br>
If there is a possibility of sock puppent we must take that
seriously and I see no problem at all to limit voters in a
reasonable and justified way.<br>
<p>As I mentioned before, newer people should come interested in
discuss and build good policies not in being able to vote straight
away. Right to vote will come naturally later on.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>There are checks and balances built into the policy
development process, including the requirement that any
adopted policy be ratified by the board before it is enacted
which protect us from the possibility of organizational
capture and other malfeasance.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>You cannot claim to have a bottom up process if you
arbitrarily eliminate members from the bottom of the process.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Not eliminating at all. They are all welcome and free to put up
their opinions at any time.<br>
Whenever they are able to show commitment to all to the PDWG and not
just an ad-hoc participation or even only a simple subscription,
they would became able to voters. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Monaco;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"
class="">The important thing to have in mind is that
having these mechanisms to limit those who can participate
at any election process DOES NOT limit any new people to
participate in the discussions at any time. The interest
from newer people should not be to be able to vote
straight away, but to contribute. The right to decide will
come as something natural later on.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I support this limit and only the limits mentioned by me above:</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Registered
on list prior to <date> where <date> predates the
notice of the election.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Is
a unique actual identified human being.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sounds a good start.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:B164813C-53D6-4796-BF1D-CC6C77298007@delong.com">
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>