[rpd] Clarifying a few points

[S. Moonesamy]

Dear Jordi,
At 07:41 AM 15-12-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>[Jordi] However, as I said many many many times, the ToR was *just 

>an example* (the one that allowed to discover this problem). What is 

>inconsistent is that the by-laws allow the Board to make new 

>policies and the PDP doesn't allow that! I fully agree that the 

>Board needs to protect the membership and *the resources* and I 

>agree (with some corrections to minor typos) that the bylaws are 

>just right (and difficult to change), and as a consequence the PDP 

>must explicitly allow what the bylaws are allowing. The bylaws are 

>governing the AFRINIC as an organization, but the bylaws *can't* and 

>*must not* be on top of the overall community. I'm sure we all agree 

>on that. So again, the right way to resolve that is to have the PDP 

>*allowing that*.


There is the Policy Development Working Group and the Resource 
Members.  I do not view them as one being on top of the other.  They 
exist side by side.  It is the working group which defines the rules 
for AFRINIC to manage and administer Internet Number 
Resources.  There was at least one instance where implementing those 
rule (policy) required AFRINIC to make a change; it was done.

Legal advice can be useful in understanding the implications of a 
policy proposal,  e.g. 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009390.html  It is up to 
the Policy Development Working Group participants to assess whether 
it would be reasonable to follow the advice or not.


>[Jordi] We like it or not, the document is invalid. The document is 

>a criminal attack to the PDP and the full community and has *never* 

>followed the PDP process, which has a


I would not conclude that a document which I have not seen yet is 
incorrect or against the "PDP".


>single way to modify the PDP: the PDP itself. Again, I fully 

>understand that nobody did that in bad faith, but nobody understood 

>the consequences of bypassing the PDP.


The possible consequences of your policy proposal is that it will:

   (a) Prevent PDWG participants from filing appeals.

   (b) Prevent PDWG participants from requesting a "Recall".


There is a clause which I wrote in the PDP to avoid unjustified 
delays in implementing a policy.  Is there any reason to delay the 
implementation of your proposal once it becomes a policy?


>[Jordi] This is a big issue: either the chairs are not doing the 

>complete work, or nobody explained them and they missed it, but 

>somehow, the staff responsibility is to tell them: "after you've 

>declared consensus - which they did according the list archive, etc. 

>- you need to tell the board". My guess is that they told the staff, 

>because that actually meant the CEO to ask the Legal Counsel about 

>that, etc., so maybe there is some "incomplete" internal process 

>between the staff and the board?


I did not encounter such a problem when I served as PDWG co-Chair.  I 
doubt that there an "incomplete" "process".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

Board Chair, AFRINIC