<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>So are you suggesting us to ignore the serious issues related to
nominators not being aware of the nominees and also the actions
taken out of the deadline in order to permit people that had the
same chances to be nominated as others that were able to do it as
expected ?</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/04/2021 16:24, Taiwo Oye wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BBAF170D-1210-468F-8BE2-2247C7448B4F@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com"><abscoco@gmail.com></a> 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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP</a>>
<div>[2]: CPM section 3.3 <<a
href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">cmNOG's
Structure</a>|<a
href="https://survey.cmnog.cm/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cmNOG's
Surveys</a><br>
Subscribe to the <a
href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>