<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi everyone. <div><br></div><div>I am a bit confused as to where nomcom disqualified some candidates from the election race.</div><div><br></div><div>Is there a coalition trying to portray to the community that there are only two candidates being considered for possible election?</div><div><br></div><div>I have read all points trying to discredit the validity of the other nominations. But I think it is only right to see if these candidates are permitted to run for the election or not. </div><div><br></div><div>Insisting on having a seconder is not stated anywhere in the CPM [1] and also I believe that omination forms can only be submitted when all compulsory fields (usually denoted by *) are filled.</div><div><br></div><div>An election is deemed a success if everyone is given a fair chance. I am in support of giving all candidates a voice as we await the final candidacy list from NomCom.</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards. </div><div>Taiwo</div><div><br></div><div>(1). <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/s/afrinic.net/policy/manual/amp">https://www.google.com/amp/s/afrinic.net/policy/manual/amp</a></div><div><br></div><div><br><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Apr 9, 2021, at 18:44, Sylvain Baya <abscoco@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>{try to move the faster possible/reasonable}</div><div dir="ltr">Dear PDWG,<br></div><br><div><br></div><div>...as a resumé:</div><div><br></div><div><tl;dr></div><div><div><div>i0| We have two valid candidacies : so nothing more to do. <br></div><div>They become simply the new PDWG's Chairs...if there is <br></div><div>no reasonable objection.</div><div><br></div>i1| ...to keep a good stand, in trying to use only what our PDP <br></div><div>allows us to, we should/could just leave that problem for <br></div><div>the end of the shortest mandate. The rational of this simple <br></div><div>idea lies in the flexible structure of the PDP relatively to the <br></div><div>*selection* process. Then, at that time the PDWG could <br></div><div>choose to simply agree on a suitable selection method ; if <br></div><div>there are disagreement what should be important at end <br></div><div>could be to remain fair and transparent as a WG.</div><div><br></div><div><div>i2| Could the candidates confirm their agreement?</div><div><br></div><div>i3| When i2| is done, the PDWG should immediatelly install <br></div><div>their new Chairs...if i'm not wrong though :-/</div></div></div><div></tl;dr></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 9 avr. 2021 à 13:46, Jaco Kroon <<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za">jaco@uls.co.za</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Daniel,<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Jaco,<br></div><div>...brother, many thanks for proposing new and quite interesting <br></div><div>perspectives. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Do note that I've actually made two distinct proposals.<br>
<br>
Firstly, that we accept Vincent and Darwin as the two replacement<br>
chairs. I understand you're in agreement with this. The question is<br>
who is for which period, of course, if we can't agree on this, then we<br>
can delegate that to the PPM as per below.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>i see no need to do so :-/</div><div>...the problem seems to not be too complex as the proposed <br></div><div>solution.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
What you disagree with is the secondary proposal that we do this with an<br>
effective one year and two year term as of right now? Or more<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This disagreement has no real consequencies, within the actual <br></div><div>situation, because we have only two acceptable candidacies.</div><div><br></div><div>...there is a practice, enshrined [2] into the PDP, which could be <br></div><div>used to resolve the question of the term by leaving it between <br></div><div>the two caditates: <br></div><div><br></div><div>~°~</div><div>[...]<br></div><div>A *term* may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the <br></div><div>Public
Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the <br></div><div>Public Policy
Meeting *as determined by the mutual agreement* <br></div><div>of the current Chair and
the new Chair.</div><div>[...]</div><div>~°~<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
precisely, you're warning that this could set a dangerous precedent for<br>
future in case we do recall our chairs again. I cannot argue with that,<br>
but I must point out that I think the risk of that is fairly low.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...apart the fact that there is already a DPP [*] which is trying to <br></div><div>better rule the PDWG Chairs Recall; i can add that, we should <br></div><div>only try to solve our problems step by step...</div><div>__</div><div>[*]: it still waiting for a "comming soon" IAR though </div><div><<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-007-d1">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-007-d1</a>></div><div><br></div><div>i0| We have two valid candidacies : so nothing more to do. <br></div><div>They become simply the new PDWG's Chairs...if there is <br></div><div>no reasonable objection.<br></div><div><br></div><div>...given that Frank has already reported that they have both <br></div><div>already agreed on the distribution of the terms of their <br></div><div>respectives mandates, could we conclude that all is OK?</div><div><br></div><div>...one thing remains, how to go further than the real <br></div><div>mandates of the Recalled PDWG's Chairs?</div><div><br></div><div>What i propose is also quite simple:</div><div><br></div><div>i1| ...to keep a good stand, in trying to use only what our PDP <br></div><div>allows us to, we should/could just leave that problem for <br></div><div>the end of the shortest mandate. The rational of this simple <br></div><div>idea lies in the flexible structure of the PDP relatively to the <br></div><div>*selection* process. Then, at that time the PDWG could <br></div><div>choose to simply agree on a suitable selection method ; if <br></div><div>there are disagreement what should be important at end <br></div><div>could be to remain fair and transparent as a WG.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Please let's move forward on what we have already agreed on.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I do agree that the second proposal is strictly speaking a deviation<br>
from the process. And this will contradict 3.3 of the CPM which<br>
(amongst others) state:<br>
<br>
"The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public<br>
Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms."<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>...no!</div><div>There is not such constraint...PPM is ruled at CMP section 3.4.2 [1]<br></div><div>...also you have to look at two differents scenari; enlightened below: <br></div><div>{*interim*} and {*temporary*}</div><div><br></div><div>Please see below [2]:<br></div><div><br></div><div>~°~</div><div><h3>3.3 The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG)</h3>[...]<p>{*interim*} If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve <br>his or her full term,
the Working Group may select a <br>replacement to serve the remainder of the
term. <br>{*temporary*} If the Working Group Chairs are unable <br>to attend the Public
Policy Meeting, the Working Group <br>shall nominate a Chair for the
session. Anyone present <br>at the meeting, whether in person or by remote
participation, <br>may participate in the selection process for a temporary
Chair.</p></div><div>~°~</div><br><div>...see as a flexible PDP [1] is helping us; as it's quite simple <br></div><div>to solve most of our problems with no PDWG Chairs and quite <br></div><div>without violating our own binding rules :-)<div>__</div>[1]: CPM section 3.0 <<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP</a>><div>[2]: CPM section 3.3 <<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG</a>><br></div><div> </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I'm of the opinion though that with the consensus so far there are not<br>
any real objections to deviation from this process, obviously with the<br>
understanding that this is exceptional circumstances, and can thus be<br>
considered an emergency, as such, 3.6 of the CPM in my (not a lawyer)<br>
opinion is applicable.<br></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>...no need to bypass the PDP in trying to use CPM section 3.6, <br></div><div>without PDWG's Chairs to enforce it!<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
1. The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.<br>
<br>[...]<br>
<br>
2. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.<br>
<br>[...]<br>
<br>
3. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than<br>
four weeks.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is why the PDWG should be really grateful of the actual <br></div><div>outcome. Then accept it for what it is really: a very good <br></div><div>opportunity to rapidly move forward with gift of two months <br></div><div>to prepare the coming PPM...<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">[...]<br>
<br>
4. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be<br>
presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There seems to be already a clear consensus on the PDWG's <br></div><div>(interim) Chairs and their respective terms. <br></div><div><br></div><div>i2| Could the candidates confirm their agreement?</div><div><br></div><div>i3| When i2| is done, the PDWG should immediatelly install <br></div><div>their new Chairs...if i'm not wrong though :-/<br></div><div><br></div><div>The consensus is not needed on i1| right now; please could <br></div><div>we agree on i3|?</div><div><br></div><div>...so that the PDWG could become able to immediately start <br></div><div>to focus again on DPPs, with new Chairs to jauge the consensus.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Shalom,</div><div>--sb.</div><br><div> </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">[...]<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
Jaco<br>
<br>
On 2021/04/09 14:03, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:<br>
<br>
> Inset<br>
><br>
> On 09/04/2021 12:30 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
>> Hi Daniel,<br>
>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> [...]<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>--<br><div><br></div><div><font size="1">Best Regards ! <br>baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] |<a href="https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure" target="_blank">cmNOG's Structure</a>|<a href="https://survey.cmnog.cm/" target="_blank">cmNOG's Surveys</a><br>Subscribe to the <a href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/" target="_blank">cmNOG's Mailing List</a><br>__<i><br>#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«*Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!*»<br>#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement<br>«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)</i></font></div></div></div></div></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>RPD mailing list</span><br><span>RPD@afrinic.net</span><br><span>https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>