[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Noah]

Hi Jaco,

Acknowledging receipt of your email and I believe this will happen sooner
rather than later and we will obviously need another PPM perhaps online or
something.

Cheer,
Noah

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:44 AM Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:


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

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201022/36e80b21/attachment-0001.html>