<div dir="auto">I have to say I agree with taiwo, as an organization we have been through alot and we are taking steps to correct them and do things right. An election needs to show fairness and everyone's voice being heard. We are looking forward to a new administration I'm very sure we do not want to start it off by saying some candidates were dropped. So in all fairness I say the two candidates be allowed to run for the election</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 8:25 PM Taiwo Oye <<a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com">taiwo.oyewande88@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 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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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 href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP</a>><div>[2]: CPM section 3.3 <<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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"><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" rel="noreferrer">cmNOG's Structure</a>|<a href="https://survey.cmnog.cm/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">cmNOG's Surveys</a><br>Subscribe to the <a href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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 href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>