[rpd] Clarifying a few points

[S. Moonesamy]

Dear Jordi,
At 01:17 AM 15-12-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>[Jordi] I'm happy if you want to organize a conference call to 
>clarify everything.

I'll contact you off-list.

I'll respond to some of points from another email.  Please ignore the 
first link.   There were recurring comments about "ICP-2".  That 
document details criteria for the creation of new RIRs.  There is 
some confusion about how the Internet Numbers Registry System 
works.  The third link was a reference to the text which I refer to 
one in a while.

I assumed that there might be some problem when I read your complaint 
about Section 5.  I did not identify it on a first pass.  I'll have 
to analyze the text again again to be able to comment about the mistake.

>[Jordi] That's doesn't matter. We continuously make mistakes, that 
>are only discovered after a while. This is the reason we update 
>laws, change procedures, amend protocols, etc., etc. As I've 
>repeatedly said, I'm sure that the board that wrote and adopted the 
>ToR did that in good faith, but they missed the point that there are 
>sections of the ToR that are re-interpreting the PDP and that means 
>that you need to update the PDP, via the PDP itself, not publish 
>additional documents.

I don't remember who wrote the document.

>[Jordi] It is not a matter of usual practice. I understand that some 
>parts of the ToR are "internal" because they are under the mandate 
>of the PDP to the board to create the Appeal Committee and no 
>further details on that. So, I'm personally fine (in principle) with 
>section 2, 3 and 4 (1 is just an intro), but section 5 is 
>*interpreting* the PDP in a different way as I can read it (and I'm 
>not alone on this). Section 5 is asking for additional details and 
>imposing additional restrictions to the text of the PDP. That means 
>the PDP is being, in fact, modified, without using the PDP, which is 
>the only *valid* way to do that.

The document is scheduled for discussion around February 2021.

>[Jordi] I fail to understand the relation of that email with this 
>topic. Just in case I can guess what you mean, have you read my 
>response to the Legal Counsel? 
>https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/012123.html The Board 
>has many choices, for example, delay the ratification of the policy 
>until the appeals are completed, withdraw the section 5 of the ToR 
>(this will not affect any existing or future appeal), if they 
>believe 5 is right, then send a policy proposal for that, etc., 
>etc.. You can do this in many combinations, any of those will work.

I did not mean that Section 5 falls under "General business practices 
..."  It may be better to determine what is in scope, what is out of 
scope for policy development, and the reasoning for that decision.

>By the way there is a very important typo there: It is not the same 
>Internet as internet. In this case it is clear that it should be 
>Internet, as we are talking about "public" resources, not the 
>"private" parts of the networks.

There was some discussion of the above outside this service region.

At 01:40 AM 15-12-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>[Jordi] Do you mean that the chairs haven't requested the Board to 
>ratify the policies?

Yes.

>Is that when the chairs declared consensus, after the last call, 
>they have sent it to the board, I guess via the policy officer, etc. 
>Can you clarify if that didn't happen? Is this a chairs lack of 
>action or staff mistake or delay in some way?

The Board did not receive any email requesting it to ratify a policy 
proposal.  I don't know what could have happened.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

Board Chair, AFRINIC