[rpd] End of Last call

[Gaby Giner]

Sorry Fernando, I think you are misleading everyone by overinterpreting it
out of context.

The Chair’s declarations made during the PPM happens to be the actions
taken by the Chair(s) as well. The decision is publicly made through the
online PPM which was on 17th September 2020.

Therefore, any appeal or disagreement on 2nd October 2020 onward should be
deemed invalid. It is as plain and simple as that.

Gaby

On Thu, Oct 8, 2020, 10:07 PM Fernando Frediani, <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
wrote:


> Gaby please read the PDP correctly and do not confuse people.

>

> The section 3.5.1 of the CPM says "disagrees with the actions taken by the

> Chair(s)" not just with declarations made during the PPM. The Chairs could

> have changed their decision meanwhile but unfortunately they haven't done.

> They have just decided to keep it and it is "a decision" which by the CPM

> bound to appeal.

>

> Fernando

> On 08/10/2020 10:49, Gaby Giner wrote:

>

> Dear community,

>

> I agree with Lucilla but only wish to add 1 point.

>

> I think everyone has overlooked one huge matter.

>

> It is true that by section 3.5(1) of the CPM “A person who disagrees with

> the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG

> Chair(s) or with the PDWG”.

>

> However, I wish to remind everyone that by section 3.5(2) of the CPM, “The

> appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the

> decision”.

>

> Applying this into the current facts, the Chair has publicly announced its

> decision on 17th September 2020 through the online PPM, whereas, the

> disagreement/appeal is only made on 2nd October 2020 onward, which is

> factually beyond the 14 days period to appeal.

>

> Therefore, the disagreements/appeal made in this email thread/mailing list

> must be deemed invalid and be disregarded.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Gaby

>

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020, 9:05 PM lucilla fornaro, <

> lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Dear Sami, dear all,

>>

>> Most of the arguments supporting the policy were not mere "opinions".

>> A quick reminder, the policy reached a rough consensus during the PPM and

>> went to the last call for some editorial changes. The authors, Taiwo and

>> Anthony, proved to be remarkably active to manage minor issues and

>> solicitudes from the community. The resource transfer policy aims to build

>> a stable and efficient resources management system for the Afrinic service

>> region.

>> The overall discussion has been full of controversies undermining the

>> work of the co-chairs, an unfair behavior in my opinion.  Also, the

>> arguments against the policy have been strongly taken apart.

>> We have been debating this policy for weeks, it is now time to move it to

>> the board for ratification.

>>

>> regards,

>>

>> Lucilla

>>

>>

>>

>> Il giorno gio 8 ott 2020 alle ore 21:09 Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <

>> rpd at afrinic.net> ha scritto:

>>

>>> Hi,

>>>

>>> I can't see how the "Resource Transfer Policy" could have reached

>>> consensus.

>>> I think the co-chairs' prerogative is to declare consensus on policies,

>>> not general opinions. And "we need an inter-RIR transfer policy" is a

>>> general opinion, not a policy.

>>> The policy in question still had objections (non-editorial) before last

>>> call. And it received significant changes during the last call period

>>> (it is not what last call is meant for).

>>>

>>> Not that I have any interest in the policy itself being ratified or not.

>>> It shouldn't be done this way.

>>>

>>> Just my 2c.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Sami

>>>

>>> On 10/8/20 12:30 AM, Moses Serugo wrote:

>>> > Hello PDWG members,

>>> >

>>> > Following the last online PPM held on 16^th -17^th September 2020.

>>> Last

>>> > call was announced on 21^st September 2020 for the following policy

>>> > proposals.

>>> >

>>> >   * Board Prerogatives on the PDP

>>> >   * Resource Transfer Policy

>>> >

>>> > This is to further announce that the  last call period for the above

>>> > proposals has ended, based on feedback received from the community and

>>> > the editorial changes made by authors to address community concerns,

>>> the

>>> > consensus decision from AFRINIC32 is still maintained.

>>> >

>>> > Co-Chairs will now send a report to the Board recommending

>>> ratification

>>> > of the two above proposals in line with CPM 3.0.

>>> >

>>> > Regards,

>>> >

>>> > Co-Chairs

>>> >

>>> >

>>> > _______________________________________________

>>> > RPD mailing list

>>> > RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>> >

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201008/cedc0ee1/attachment.html>