Question from Adilson de Souza to Wardner Maia:

The renewal of an organization's directors is always healthy and brings greater democracy, often with great results. What is your opinion on this matter? Why do people often opt for the continuity of those who are already serving on the Board?

Answer from Wardner Maia:

Dear Adilson,

Thank you for your question. This is a very interesting tool as it allows this interaction between candidates and voters. 

I understand that what is actually healthy for any democracy is not the result of an election itself, whether maintaining the same or electing new directors. A democratic process means, above all, providing the community with the mechanisms needed to make these decisions consciously.

And I believe that the LACNIC voting system we are using, the publicity given to the elections, the timeline that is used and even this period for questions allow the community to exercise this power by electing the individuals they consider the most appropriate to lead the organization at the time.

This process is of fundamental importance given that, thanks to the growing relevance of LACNIC within our region, we are seeing growing interest in management positions. This year, for example, we have a record of thirteen candidates for two vacancies, a fact that undoubtedly enhances the process and the organization itself.

I cannot help but mention my pride in having contributed, along with my colleagues on the board, to increasing the relevance, visibility and transparency of LACNIC. Likewise, I would also like to stress the importance of having contributed to the improvement of this electoral process, now in progress.

Right now, the community has the opportunity to choose between maintaining the current situation or renewing it in part or in full. Any of these choices are valid, provided that they are made consciously, analyzing the profiles and backgrounds of each candidate and even asking them questions, as you yourself have done very well. What I think is unhealthy is the inertia of maintaining the current status simply to maintain things as they are or the irresponsibility of changing the situation for the change itself.

To conclude, I would like to say that I am running once again for a position on the Board because I believe that I can continue to serve for another period, always working in the interest of the community, as I have done at LACNIC as well as at each of the associative entities in which I have participated.