<div dir="auto"><div>Dear PDWG,<br>...anyone with a new DPP? :-)</div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 12 avr. 2021 17:06, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</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>Dear Jordi.</p>
<p>I am a man of reason. </p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hi Daniel,</div><div dir="auto">Thanks for your email, brother!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...one reasonable output i'm proud of this </div><div dir="auto">PDWG for is because of its now proven ability </div><div dir="auto">to build rough consensus *without Chairs*. Thus </div><div dir="auto">has been the selection of the PDWG's *interim* </div><div dir="auto">Chairs; in full transparency while following </div><div dir="auto">essentially its PDP...good and fallacious issues </div><div dir="auto">were raised and fortunately we ended up with all </div><div dir="auto">them being well addressed...that's how rough </div><div dir="auto">consensus works...and anyone who took part of this </div><div dir="auto">wonderful part of this demonstration should </div><div dir="auto">be proud imho...</div><div dir="auto"><br></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>But, I don't appreciate being cajoled. I
agree that we could have, from onset agree that we are selecting
new co-chairs to start on a clean slate. </p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Question: what's the new issue you are raising?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...please could you consider this [1] email where i shared my understanding of the situation and how responsibilities should be shared (between the PDWG and the AFRINIC's BoD), according to the PDP and the Bylaws.</div><div dir="auto">__</div><div dir="auto">[1]: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013058.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013058.html</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></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>I disagree with the
statement that they are completing a tenure and in the same vein
mutating to start a new tenure.</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You seems to describe a normal situation. </div><div dir="auto">This is how i understand what happened:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">~°~</div><div dir="auto">•0| ...</div><div dir="auto">•1| The PDWG was reviewing the candidacies </div><div dir="auto">published;</div><div dir="auto">•2| the goal was still to *select* two *interim* </div><div dir="auto">PDWG's Chairs;</div><div dir="auto">•3| suddently a participant sent a *varying* </div><div dir="auto">proposal, where the PDWG has the opportunity </div><div dir="auto">to address an other issue he raised. The first </div><div dir="auto">version of that *varying* proposal was not fair, </div><div dir="auto">because it was proposing to exclude one candidacy </div><div dir="auto">through a forged criterion not part of the consensual </div><div dir="auto">list of criteria adopted to handle that selection...</div><div dir="auto">•4| the issue was raised [2] and explained ; then </div><div dir="auto">in reclusing himself as a candidate, the recalled </div><div dir="auto">PDWG's Chair resolved the issue...so the *varying* </div><div dir="auto">proposal becomes workable...in considering </div><div dir="auto">it as dealing *separately*, so two unrelated branches </div><div dir="auto">•5| with the First branch being about the *interim's* mandate and </div><div dir="auto">•6| the second branch being its extensionability...</div><div dir="auto">•7| where both of the two branches of that </div><div dir="auto">*varying* proposal reached a rough consensus...</div><div dir="auto">due to the very nature of the issues raised...</div><div dir="auto">•6| ...issues all well addressed! </div><div dir="auto">•7| where the consensus on the first branch was in compliance with the PDP;</div><div dir="auto">•8| the second one was not; thus that was raised.</div><div dir="auto">•9| To help the PDWG to implement its consensual decision, the BoD decided to enforce it Bylaws prerogative to *varying* the process. Fiating the extensibility of the mandate of the two *interim* PDWG's Chairs. </div><div dir="auto">•10| Right now we have two new PDWG's Chairs to administer the WG activities.</div><div dir="auto">•11| ...</div><div dir="auto">~°~</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...apart the fact that this PDWG appeared to be a mature WG; i note the intervention of the BoD acting only to render possible the implementation of a consensus emerged from the WG.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...imho, there is a problem only when the </div><div dir="auto">BoD decide to *varying* the process only </div><div dir="auto">to bypass the PDWG...everytime they'll </div><div dir="auto">decide to do it to help the PDWG, in its </div><div dir="auto">*consensus*, it should always be a </div><div dir="auto">welcomed action from the BoD.</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>If you will recall, for emphasis sake, I suggested that what we
are doing should be on a clean slate, however it was ignored.
</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...imho, as times change, it's a good thing </div><div dir="auto">that you were right *alone*, at some step and </div><div dir="auto">it's also good that the rest of the PDWG recognised, </div><div dir="auto">a step further, that your observation was founded.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What's the problem now? :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></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> Surprisingly, it was suddenly introduced after the selections was
done. <b>That is my grouse</b>.</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...brother, again when you review what </div><div dir="auto">happened you see that things have evolved </div><div dir="auto">naturally...you would have been the one who </div><div dir="auto">decided to propose that *varying* proposal...</div><div dir="auto">but for that, you had to keep a bit of constancy...</div><div dir="auto">don't you think so?</div><div dir="auto"><br></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>My suggestion is that the Board and AfriNIC Secretariat should
re-frame their affirmation and summaries to capture that the PWDG
had selected two co-chairs on a consensus to start new tenure.
This is on the condition that the records shows that this was what
actually transpired.</p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...please see my personal notes, above, on a </div><div dir="auto">storyfied view of the facts.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let me know if it satisfy you.</div><div dir="auto"><br></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>Adding to the learning: We must be consistent and implicit always
with our intentions and goals.</p>
<p></p></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...i don't get your point here, brother :-/</div><div dir="auto">Could you, please, clarify it to me?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Blessed wednesday!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Shalom,</div><div dir="auto">--sb.</div><div dir="auto"><br></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><br>
</p>
<p>Simply</p>
<p>Daniel<br>
</p>
<div>On 12/04/2021 4:31 pm, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Hi Daniel,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u>[...]</u></span></p><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"><div><div><div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">[...] </p></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>