[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10

[BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord]

Dear all,
I think that so far several concerns have been raised and
require answers. If the board of directors or any other
committee has an answer, this is the moment to give it instead of accumulating
several concerns and the answers could pose us problem.
But in the present case we just need a reorganization plan for the
continuation of activities.


Le ven. 8 mai 2020 à 19:38, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :


> Send RPD mailing list submissions to

>         rpd at afrinic.net

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>         rpd-request at afrinic.net

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

>    1. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 164, Issue 9 (BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 19:37:18 +0200

> From: BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord <guelordshadimiadi at gmail.com>

> To: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 164, Issue 9

> Message-ID:

>         <

> CABMBzF-KJzjGba4nVHS_ozhf9bC1VV4XPEWk_Ej6996Jiqju-w at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

>

> Chers tous salut,

> Je pense que jusque l? plusieurs pr?occupations ont ?t? soulev?e et

> n?cessitent les r?ponses . Si le conseil d'administration ou toute autres

> comit? a une r?ponse , ce le moment de le donner au lieu d'accumuler

> plusieurs pr?occupations et les r?ponses pourrons nous pos? probl?me.

> Mais dans le cas actuelle il nous faut juste un plan r?am?nager pour la

> suite des activit?s.

>

> Le ven. 8 mai 2020 ? 19:13, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a ?crit :

>

> > Send RPD mailing list submissions to

> >         rpd at afrinic.net

> >

> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

> >         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

> >         rpd-request at afrinic.net

> >

> > You can reach the person managing the list at

> >         rpd-owner at afrinic.net

> >

> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> > than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

> >

> >

> > Today's Topics:

> >

> >    1. Re: PDP issues because the lack of the confirmation of dates

> >       for the new PPM (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)

> >    2. Re: PDP issues because the lack of the confirmation of dates

> >       for the new PPM (Owen DeLong)

> >

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Message: 1

> > Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 15:51:49 +0200

> > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>

> > To: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>

> > Cc: AfriNIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>

> > Subject: Re: [rpd] PDP issues because the lack of the confirmation of

> >         dates for the new PPM

> > Message-ID: <57BA9732-E53D-4327-A4F9-2AD382AC3DB4 at consulintel.es>

> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> >

> > Thanks Noah, very well said.

> >

> >

> >

> > The fact that somebody that is not a co-author, and I recall was even not

> > supporting the proposal (I may be wrong here in my recalling), is having

> > the same view, is a very interesting point.

> >

> >

> >

> > However, as said before this is a discussion that falls much beyond than

> > *this specific proposal*.

> >

> >

> >

> > If the board or committees (whatever committee), which have something to

> > say related to the PDP (appeals, nominations, etc.), believe that they

> > should be able to change what the PDP is stating, this means restricting

> > the PDP and the rights of the community. This *must not be decided* by a

> > committee, but the PDP itself via a policy proposal.

> >

> >

> >

> > Otherwise that is next? May be ?the candidates to co-chairs shall bring a

> > pink tie in the presentation intro? or ?the appeal can?t be submitted by

> > the author(s), it must be another member of the community?.

> >

> >

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Jordi

> >

> > @jordipalet

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > El 8/5/20 15:42, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribi?:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Fri, 8 May 2020, 11:13 ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE, <

> > oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> > As far as we Co-chairs are concerned the ruling of the appeal committe

> > means that our decision was upheld,

> >

> >

> >

> > Am not sure there was a ruling if the appeal committee indicated that the

> > said appeal didnt meet the apparent requirements of three WG supporters

> > even though there is WG support for the proposal itself archived.

> >

> >

> >

> > Even the so called support is subject to interpretations and

> clarification

> > has been sought from the appeals committee as to what they mean after all

> > their previous appeals  ruling years ago didnt spell out the 3 supporters

> > requirement which was the basis of the recent dramatic ruling by AC.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > meaning the policy proposal goes back to the discussion stage.

> >

> >

> >

> > Not so fast.

> >

> >

> >

> > IMHO, I am still waiting for clarification from the appeals committee in

> > relationship to their contradictions of how they handled the previous

> > appeals vs this particular case. [1]

> >

> >

> >

> > Noah

> >

> >

> >

> > [1] If appeals committee doesnt clarify their ruling then the issue needs

> > to be escalated beyond the PDWG and appeals committee itself since the

> > working group is not satisfied with the co-chairs and appeals committees

> > decisions.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > **********************************************

> > IPv4 is over

> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> > http://www.theipv6company.com

> > The IPv6 Company

> >

> > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or

> > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of

> > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized

> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this

> > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

> > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

> > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or

> > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including

> > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal

> > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this

> > communication and delete it.

> >

> > -------------- next part --------------

> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> > URL: <

> >

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200508/59bce434/attachment-0001.html

> > >

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > Message: 2

> > Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 10:12:40 -0700

> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>

> > To: ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

> > Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>

> > Subject: Re: [rpd] PDP issues because the lack of the confirmation of

> >         dates for the new PPM

> > Message-ID: <AD850F98-9CF2-460E-AFDD-565433586E91 at delong.com>

> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> >

> > AK,

> >

> > May I suggest that while ?criminal? may have been too strong a word, it

> is

> > true that the Appeal Committee appears to have violated its own rules, or

> > at least to have applied different rules to different appeals. I would

> > attribute the use of such a strong word to being more likely a mistake of

> > translation than an intentional act of hostility. No matter how often I

> may

> > disagree with Jordi (and I often do), I have never known him to be

> uncivil

> > and I am confident that he speaks and acts with the best of intentions.

> >

> > As to the use of the word discrimination, when the Appeals Committee

> chose

> > to apply inconsistent standards to what constitutes a valid appeal, what

> > other term would you use to describe it? It is my opinion that the use of

> > the term is, in fact, entirely justified in this situation.

> >

> > Owen

> >

> >

> > > On May 7, 2020, at 10:51 , ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <

> > oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Fernando,

> > >

> > > 1. "Criminal" Appeal committee

> > > 2. Unjustified use of the word Discrimination.

> > > Thanks

> > > AK

> > >

> > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 3:30 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com

> > <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

> > > Hello Abdulkarim

> > >

> > > Please let all us know which exact words Jordi used on his message that

> > violated the code of conduct so we can all be aware and avoid it in

> future

> > messages.

> > >

> > > Best regards

> > > Fernando

> > >

> > > On 07/05/2020 10:58, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE wrote:

> > >> Dear Jordi

> > >> You have raised some critical question for us all to think about I am

> > sure you do not expect a stright forward response to your questions as

> you

> > know Africa is different from Latin America in a lot of ways.

> > >>    Secondly, in your last email, you used some words that are not

> > acceptable.  We (Co-chairs) are sure that you are aware of the code of

> > conduct concerning the use of such statements on the PDWG making list or

> > during the Policy meeting.  Such statements are unacceptable, and this

> is a

> > formal warning that you should refrain from the use of such words. We

> > understand that you are not satisfied with the appeal, but there are ways

> > in which this can be resolved. As far as we Co-chairs are concerned the

> > ruling of the appeal committe means that our decision was upheld, meaning

> > the policy proposal goes back to the discussion stage. This should not

> > result in you using unacceptable language; rather, you should put your

> > energy into convincing the community about the policy during the next

> > Policy meeting.

> > >> Please be warned.

> > >> Thank you

> > >>

> > >> Co-Chair

> > >> PDWG

> > >>

> > >>

> > >> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:59 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <

> > rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

> > >> Hi all,

> > >>

> > >> Because the dates of the next Public Policy Meeting (PPM) are unknown,

> > there is a problem with the PDP in several aspects:

> > >>

> > >> 1) Deadlines for new policy proposals are unknown.

> > >> 2) Deadlines for new versions of existing policy proposals are

> unknown.

> > >> 3) Co-chair elections timing is unknown.

> > >>

> > >> Further to that, the lack of response on the board and the co-chairs,

> > regarding the criminal appeal comitte agression to the PDP discriminating

> > authors of proposals by not allowing them to be part of the community for

> > an appeal as indicated in 3.5.1 of the CPM, also creates an additional

> > trouble. We are in a limbo state with this proposal. Should we accept the

> > aggression to the PDP and send the existing text again? On what timing

> > basis? Should we ask the co-chairs to make sure that the PDP is

> respected?

> > Should the board take an action on that?

> > >>

> > >> It is a must to know *NOW* (already too close to the 4 weeks deadline)

> > if we are going to hold a on-line PPM in the same dates as originally

> > scheduled, or what is the new date, or if we will just have one meeting

> > this year, with the same dates as already scheduled?

> > >>

> > >> The Covid-19 is affecting everyone, and it is very sad, but most of

> our

> > work is done ir can be done remotelly. There are no excuses to avoid

> > continuing doing our work, but we need to get an *urgent* confirmation

> from

> > the co-chairs and board about all the matters I've indicated above.

> > >>

> > >> As a side note, all the other RIRs (and the IETF and ICANN already

> did)

> > are doing the meetings on-line. In fact, today we have the equivalent to

> > the PPM for LACNIC. The only issue is a reduced agenda, so only 3 policy

> > proposals are being discussed, and still there will be consensus

> > determination for them.

> > >>

> > >> By the way if you're interested to participate in the LACNIC, there is

> > simultaneous english/portuguess/spanish transcription and anyone can

> > participate:

> > https://www.lacnic.net/4191/56/evento/welcome-to-lacnic-33-online <

> > https://www.lacnic.net/4191/56/evento/welcome-to-lacnic-33-online>. The

> > agenda of the PPM is here:

> > https://www.lacnic.net/4487/56/evento/open-policy-forum <

> > https://www.lacnic.net/4487/56/evento/open-policy-forum>.

> > >>

> > >>

> > >> Regards,

> > >> Jordi

> > >> @jordipalet

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >> **********************************************

> > >> IPv4 is over

> > >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> > >> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>

> > >> The IPv6 Company

> > >>

> > >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged

> or

> > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of

> > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized

> > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this

> > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly

> > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the

> > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or

> > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including

> > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal

> > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this

> > communication and delete it.

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >> _______________________________________________

> > >> RPD mailing list

> > >> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <

> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> > >>

> > >>

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <

> > http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <

> > http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <

> > https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > RPD mailing list

> > > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <

> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> > -------------- next part --------------

> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> > URL: <

> >

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200508/dd5df612/attachment.html

> > >

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > Subject: Digest Footer

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing list

> > RPD at afrinic.net

> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------

> >

> > End of RPD Digest, Vol 164, Issue 9

> > ***********************************

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200508/9f49785f/attachment.html

> >

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 164, Issue 10

> ************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200508/89e58053/attachment-0001.html>