<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><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" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Unless and until that happens, the mechanism for selecting co-chairs should not be altered ad hoc.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ok! Let's move forward, as you strongly disagree </div><div class="">to this pré-selection procedure; with reasonable </div><div class="">arguments...imho, the discussion has reached a <br class=""></div><div class="">point where the PDWG's Chairs should decide what</div><div class=""> they prefer...you know, they have that power [1] </div><div class="">and they are free to use it at this occasion.</div><div class="">__</div><div class="">[1]: "3.6 Varying the Process</div><div class=""><div class="">The process outlined in this document may vary in</div><div class=""> the case of an emergency. Variance is for use </div><div class="">when a one-time waiving of some provision of this </div><div class="">document is required.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>As you point out, varying the process requires an emergency. This is NOT an emergent situation, so no, the co-chairs aren’t free to vary the process this time. Yes, last year was emergent due to the constraints imposed by the COVID emergency. We’ve begun to move from Pandemic phase to Endemic phase and we’ve had a year to plan for this situation. As such, no such emergency exists at this time.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The decision to vary the process is taken by a </div><div class="">Working Group Chair.</div><div class="">There must be an explanation about why the </div><div class="">variance is needed.</div><div class="">The review period, including the Last Call, shall </div><div class="">not be less than four weeks.</div><div class="">If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it </div><div class="">must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting."</div><div class=""> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#:~:text=3.6%C2%A0%20Varying%20the,Public%20Policy%20Meeting" class="">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#:~:text=3.6%C2%A0%20Varying%20the,Public%20Policy%20Meeting</a>.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I suppose that technically, if a WG chair decides there’s an emergency, that meets the letter of the law, but the clear intent of the language is that the co-chair is expected to be able to explain himself and justify the emergency (and the resulting variance) to the satisfaction of the working group.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>