<div dir="auto"><div>Dear PDWG,<br>Hope you are well!</div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le jeu. 8 avr. 2021 17:17, Jaco Kroon <<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jaco@uls.co.za</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Hi All,</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hi Jaco,</div><div dir="auto">Thanks for you email, brother! </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>Given that we've repeatedly stated that there should be a
nominator and a seconder for all nominations, this means we only
really received 3 nominations (3,4,5 below).</p>
<p>Given that Abulkarim (4) was one of the co-chairs removed by the
recall committee, and there has been controversy around the
previous co-chairs, in my opinion we only really have two
candidates.</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...maybe AK could accept to step down by himself this time :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If that scenario occurs, the situation becomes effectively simpler: two candidacies...so </div><div dir="auto">the shortest pool to rely on. </div><div dir="auto">What Jaco is proposing us to do is to hear the </div><div dir="auto">candidates, then to adopt their internal decision. </div><div dir="auto">If that is possible with two candidates...why </div><div dir="auto">not trying to extend this same approach to the </div><div dir="auto">full pool of rights candidacies? Rather than </div><div dir="auto">simply trying to exclude one candidacy without </div><div dir="auto">the consent of the candidate :-/ </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We could simply start by tasking those three </div><div dir="auto">candidates to attempt to exclude one of them by </div><div dir="auto">themselves...they can do it either privately </div><div dir="auto">during an online recorded meeting supervised </div><div dir="auto">by the AfriNIC's CEO or with the presence of volunteers </div><div dir="auto">from the PDWG.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...i understand the rational behind the proposition </div><div dir="auto">from Jaco, but it seems to be not fully practical </div><div dir="auto">at this time. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Question: What is the criteria which could be </div><div dir="auto">used to remove one of the three acceptable </div><div dir="auto">candidacies from the pool?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...if there is no one we can use right now. Then conclusion: we should live with that pool as is.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">PDWG, please consider this email as an amendment </div><div dir="auto">of the actual proposition from Jaco. Imho a more </div><div dir="auto">practical way forward than the interesting </div><div dir="auto">one below...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...that said! i call you to freely consider the two </div><div dir="auto">alternatives. Thanks,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Shalom,</div><div dir="auto">--sb.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>And both of these candidates seems to be good choices. From
Vincent's (3) nomination, by Barry:</p>
<p>"Vincent is an outstanding person for the PDWG as he was the
first co-chair of the same back in the days. we need to bring back
the fundamental values and hence i nominate him"</p>
<p>I could not agree more about bringing back the fundamentals, and
plainly Vincent has experience in a co-chair position that we
desperately need at this point in time.<br>
</p>
<p>Regarding Darwin (5), I've gone back and read a fair number of
his emails over the last year or so, and Darwin in my opinion has
a level head, the ability to reason and understand as well. I
could not find a single example of him being involved personally
in a controversy in spite of him providing his opinion on a number
of topics.<br>
</p>
<p>I would thus like to make two proposals.</p>
<p>1. We select the two candidates as above, in my opinion with
Vincent in the two-year tenure and Darwin in the one year tenure.
By consensus if possible.</p>
<p>2. Given that the next meeting is two months from now, I would
like to propose that we measure these tenures as from "this year"
such that the effective tenures will be one and two years
respectively from now, and not "puppet" and "one year"
effectively.</p>
<p>Kind Regards,<br>
Jaco<br>
</p>
On 2021/04/08 16:26, AFRINIC Policy Liaison wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><b style="font-weight:normal;font-size:13.3333px;white-space:pre-wrap" id="m_-2684451896311917916m_-6511636375423768386docs-internal-guid-4c44614a-7fff-06f3-8529-3e9dfc0416ab"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> <p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">[...]</p></font></b></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>