<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=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 26, 2022, at 1:16 PM, Owen DeLong via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 26, 2022, at 05:02 , Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com" class="">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta charset="UTF-8" class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="">Hummm ! my comments inline<br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 25 avr. 2022 à 13:27, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" class="">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> a écrit :<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class="">Dear all, <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="">I have tried as much as possible not to make a comment but it seems I have to comment on this as I would also be making a comment on the other impunity the board leadership have decided to plunge AFRINIC into recently. </div><div class="">1. This timeline is not acceptable because I don't know how Co-chairs would emerge via the use of the mailing list.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">We keep repeating ourselves. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">You do know how Policy discussions and decisions are made on the ML, but somehow you do not know how the selection of Co-chairs to take on the administrative support role of the Working Group, happens on the same mailinglist.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>The PDP provides for this when it comes to policies… It makes no allowance for it in regards to the selection of co-chairs.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>The PDP only requests that cochairs are « chosen » by the community during the PPM.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The PDP does not indicate how, which is left to the WG to decide by Consensus. There is a track record of the PDP in the past at multiple occasions appointing its Co-chairs by consensus.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>So the PDP does not forbidden selection of cochair by consensus through the ML with confirmation at the upcoming PPM.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I can see some evolution in your thoughts. Last time this was discussed, you said this was not doable as selection of cochair is not discussion on policy proposal. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>Now you are concerned by it not been allowed by the PDP.</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I believe this is his point, though he is perhaps being too polite in how he expresses it…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Attempting to select co-chairs on the mailing list is a violation of the terms in the CPM. If we want to change the selection process, then we should have a policy proposal to do so and let the community debate, discuss, and ultimately come to consensus (or not) around it. Unless and until that happens, the mechanism for selecting co-chairs should not be altered ad hoc.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>What selection process are you referring to?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>There are a couple of proposal to define one which you and others opposed.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Until now, we have been running with a process defined by board and endorsed by the WG.</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">It was tried last time what we ended up having are impostors.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Impostors ? These two interim co-chairs are respectable community members with proven reputation and expertise who have done a great service so far and I am sure, WG participants would want them to continue.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Clearly there are multiple perspectives on this. One person’s idea of a “great service” is another person’s idea of tremendous disservice. FWIW, I am neither impressed, nor angered by the performance of the current co-chairs. There are things they could have done better, there are things they could have done worse.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">Two people who claimed they emerged as consensus candidates when some others on the mailing did not agree. I see no consensus in the process.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Looks like you still have a problem with understanding “consensus” </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Do “objections” mean de facto ”no consensus”?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Technically, yes, that is the definition of consensus. Especially when many of those objections went unaddressed.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>It depends on who determines that an objection is unaddressed and remain opened.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>« Objections are to be addressed and not necessary accommodated. »</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Again, if the objection is only that the choice is not ideal but is otherwise acceptable, such a compromise is fine. </div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""> <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class=""> <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Then I object to criteria J. I see no reason for this. Endorsement from resource members shows some form of affiliation.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Affiliation to who? Resource members are the main stakeholders here, accountable to the global community. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">The community has witnessed sponsored Co-chairs before who were supposed to be participating as individuals without motives.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>The problem you have here is that criteria J encourages and arguably requires such sponsorship. It sounds to me like you are both arguing against criteria J.</div><div class="">FWIW, I agree, criteria J is a bad idea in general.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div><div>I am actually in support. « J » limits the risks to get a rogue incompetent co-chair. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>If the endorsement turns into the sponsorship we’ve seen in the past, it will be easily known and dealt with.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>BTW: AFAIK, Resource Members POCs or affiliated are accepted as candidate.</div></div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""> <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">co-chairs are not expected to be endorsed this way. </div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Who says so ? Even though resources members are also part of the community, they are the direct affected parties by policies and decisions made by the PDP. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Well, for one, it’s not part of the process as described in the CPM.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">As a known and well organised stakeholders, I see nothing wrong with them endorsing co-chairs or even endorsing draft policy proposals. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There is nothing wrong with them endorsing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What is being argued here is not their ability to endorse. What is being argued is that such endorsement is a condition of eligibility to serve as a co-chair.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>