[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi All,

I think we're digressing again.  We should focus on the policies currently.

We're back in last call after the decision to call consensus was
successfully appealed.  I think we can all agree that:

1.  We need a transfer policy.
2.  The decision has been made to extend last call after the appeal.
3.  There is plainly *NOT* consensus around the currently in last call
DPP for transfers.

Therefore the only sensible decision that the Chairs (in my opinion) can
make is that the decision of "last call" is "no consensus" and therefore
the draft policy proposal (DPP) has to go back to discussion.

Based on that, let's start focussing on the what it is that we need from
an (any of the) inter-RIR policy.

In short:  please let this thread die - it's not serving any purpose
other than to work on everyone's nerves and causing more friction. 
Let's rather work towards getting a working policy.  Energy much better
spent.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

On 2020/10/22 10:27, Noah wrote:


>

>

> On Thu, 22 Oct 2020, 10:33 Daniel Yakmut via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net

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

>

>     Dear Fernando,

>

>     The extension is not a fabrication of the Co-chairs, but a

>     response to the call made by community members

>

>

> Where in the PDP (regulations) is it indicated that a policy that

> cochairs have declared has attained consensus pending ratification can

> be extended for further discussions.

>

> There were also calls to take the disputed proposal back to the rpd

> list for WG discussion. These were made before cochairs declared a

> week later total consensus on the proposal.

>

> There were also a calls to extend the last call by I believe Jordi,

> but the cochairs declaired consensus and indicated their decision to

> advice the board to ratify.

>

> When an appeal was launched, then the working group surprisingly noted

> a reversal of a decision by cochairs on the very disputed proposal. 

>

>

>

>     Let us continuously focus on the policy,

>

>

> When cases are before the court of appeals, discussing the very case

> is considered interference with court proceedings.

>

> Its prudent that we respect our rules of engagement.

>

> Noah

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201022/f444dd04/attachment.html>