[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