> On 24 May 2016, at 11:08, Patrik Fältström <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am > nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what > features I would like to see on a new chair.
I share these concerns and fully support the points you've raised Patrik. Any talk of elections rather than consensus decisions in a RIPE context gives me the heebie jeebies. These get worse when it's those in leadership positions who talk about elections. The co-chair candidates that have emerged to date do not appear to have deep roots in the RIPE community. Although all three are familiar with Internet goverance matters in general, they're somewhat detached from the policy development and Internet governance issues in the RIPE region. This is troubling. As a result, I'm reluctant to support any of them. It would be good for the WG to discuss the requirements and criteria for the new co-chair. I hope we can have that discussion when the WG meets this week. Once there's consensus in the WG on these requirements and criteria, it should be easier to decide which candidate(s) would be the best choice. This may mean the appointment of a co-chair can't be done in Copenhagen and will need to be delayed.
