<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>+1 to this and previous Noah's message.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/04/2021 11:05, Noah wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEqgTWbVfBDyCBUi033+YMf2Yp1u0QWzg_QhsRH80N3NJeytog@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi Mike<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, 12:20
Mike Silber, <<a href="mailto:silber.mike@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">silber.mike@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Thanks
for the explanation Paul
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While I appreciate your feedback, this raises
further questions:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>can an invalid nomination be remedied as you are
now suggesting? This is not a case of an error
(such as a typo) being corrected, but a key
requirement that was irregular. I am not sure that
we can allow a nominator to be swapped out like
this when it turns out the nomination was invalid?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Folks had enough time to find suitable nominator
and seconder known to them. It turns out some of the nominees
used fraudulent nominator. This speaks a lot about the
nominees and we as a WG need to take this stuff serious when
folks are dishonest.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<ul>
<li>what does this say about the motivation that was
included in the nomination? Was this written by
the purported nominator or by the nominee or
someone else? What does that say about the
nomination?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If a nominator denies ever supporting a nominee
and even asks the secretariat to remove the nominator details
due to privacy concerns, it means that they as purported
nominator never wrote the said motivation for the said
candidate and as such it was someone else. That level of
dishonesty can not be tolerated by the WG.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<ul>
<li>what about the requirement for the nomination to
be seconded?</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This was also lacking on those purported
nomination applications yet very important which is why the
application forms had such a requirement.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<ul>
<li>the process is silent on a member’s ability to
nominate more than one candidate.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">While the nomination is silent, a single
members attempt to nominate two different candidates for the
same co-chair position leaves a bad test in my mouth and must
be rejected.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<ul>
<li> It seems rather strange for a single nominator
to make multiple nominations. </li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">Indeed and
we as a WG must reject any signs of a potential capture of
the PDP. </span><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div>
<ul>
<li>Certainly something to be covered in a process
improvement. Possibly a question best left to the
election process. </li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Certainly just like the requirement that a
nominee, nominator and seconder can not be from the same
Organizational and I remember seeing one of the application
had the nominee and nominator from the same Org.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Noah</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>