[rpd] Clarifying a few points

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear PDWG,
Hope you are doing well!
Please see my comments below, inline...

Le mardi 15 décembre 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a
écrit :


> Responding below, in-line.

>

>

> El 15/12/20 15:46, "S. Moonesamy" <sm+af at afrinic.net> escribió:

>

>      >> [...]

>

> [Jordi] I'm very clear about how the RIRs were created. I've been there

> specially during the discussions/creation of LACNIC and AFRINIC, so in my

> own case, I'm not confused at all. What it is clear is that the only valid

> document related to the constitution of new RIRs is not the one you mention

> (which is more about global policies) and points to https://www.icann.org/

> resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en, and the relevant point

> is "3) Bottom-up self-governance structure for setting local policies".




>

Hi Jordi,
Thanks for your email with such a useful reference :-)



>

> Note the "self-governance". If the Board is imposing "documents" (such as

> the ToR) that amend the PDP and aren't adopted by bottom-up consensus (by

> the PDP itself), then this is broken.

>

>

...i'm calling the AFRINIC's BoD to start to fix this :'-(
 It's sad to see how this clear issue is managed :-/



>      >> 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] There are many, I've explained some of them many times. The major

> one, ToR is just trying to specify (again I'm sure in good faith), how to

> submit an appeal, but the PDP is self-contained. If the PDP is not clear,

> if there are several possible interpretations of that part of the text, it

> needs to be amended *following the PDP*. The ToR section 5 contradicts the

> PDP.

>

>

...i don't understand why we have to discuss
on such a truth :-/



> [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.




>

...Jordi, you have repeated this argumentation
many times and i knew it's founded on the truth,
but i prefered to stay aside. Now that i see so
many inconsistencies [0] with the implementation
of the PDP [1]...i think it's time to engage into the
discussion.

Please PDWG Chairs, be kind to point me
to the appropriate thread, for me to add
my comments...



>

> I'm sure we all agree on that.




>

...not sure! definitely :'-(
If it was the case, i guess that the situation
would have been at least a bit different :-/



>

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

>

>

...anyone is free to agree or disagree, but
i recall that there is a PDP [1] to guide our
activities in this PDWG [2]

Why are we having this parallel thread for
the same purpose/DPP?

Where are the PDWG Chairs? i would have
expected them to reorient the discussions to
the appropriate thread...

...but i may be wrong though :'-(



> [Jordi] Not correcting that is against ICP-2. Not correcting that means

> that the Board in the future, could write a ToR (call it whatever you

> want), to change something else in the PDP or the CPM and bypass the PDP

> bottom-up consensus based process.

>

>


...a risk; which i imagine, no one here wants
to take...see the proof [3].



>     > [...]

>

>      >> I don't remember who wrote the document.

>

> [Jordi] Some previous "Board" I guess, but it doesn't matter, it just need

> to be corrected once it has been discovered.

>

>     > [...]

>

>      >> The document is scheduled for discussion around February 2021.

>

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

> criminal attack to the PDP and the full



>


...added to this [4] thread, it seems as a coordinated one;
directed to the PDWG

:'-(



>



> community and has *never* followed the PDP process, which has a 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.

>

>      >>>[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.

>

> [Jordi] For me is very clear: Anything related to the PDP itself and

> resource policies "bottom-up self-governance for setting local policies".

> There is not discussion on that. The community is able to decide up to what

> point they want to provide operational guidance to AFRINIC. I'm, in

> general, in favor of not going too far in the operational details within

> the policies. However sometimes you need to, because: a) if you don't go

> into the details, consensus can't be reached, b) if the RIR is not doing

> correctly the work, the only way the community can resolve that is by means

> of policy setting.

>

>


...it's also my understanding ;-)



> Let's have an example: We discovered a couple of years ago, that the staff

> was not providing timely impact analysis. We asked the staff to voluntary

> adhere to some timeframes for that. They were not doing it, so we proposed

> a policy for fixing that.



>


...it had been storified at that time here:
<https://slideshare.net/SylvainBAYAABOKA/dpp-afpub2019gen005draft01ppmafrin
ic31v20>


>



> It seems that this policy proposal is no longer needed or at least could

> be relaxed, so we let the policy proposal to expire. However, if the staff

> doesn't improve the impact analysis timing, the community can, at any time,

> propose that policy again.

>

>

...a volunteer can start here: AFPUB-2019-GEN-005-DRAFT01:
<https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-d1#proposal>

and he is free to even use this (*CC BY-SA 4.0*):
<https://www.slideshare.net/SylvainBAYAABOKA/dppafpub2019gen005draft01onlin
eppm20200916afrinic32v30>



> The Board could setup an internal procedure for the timing of the impact

> analysis. However, if the community still believes that this is not good

> enough, the community can decide on a policy proposal for that. If the

> board doesn't ratify that policy, unless a very good justification for the

> non-ratification is provided (example, the community irrationally decides

> to provide 1 weeks for the impact analysis), the RIR is in breach of the

> ICP-2 and acting against the community.

>

>


Jordi, you are simply describing the PDP.

...but when you mentioned "[...] breach of the ICP-2 [...]",
it started to think on a scenario, then please consider
my questions:

•~/
•1| Imagine a scenario where:
• the BoD adopts a DPP,
• sends it to the PDWG, or not.
• The PDWG rejects it, but
• the BoD ratifies it.
• What'll happen?
•2| Is there a mean to address the issue?
•3| Which procedure can be used to resolve it?
•4| If there is not, then, what's the appropriate
way to fix it?
•5| ...
•~\



> I hope you agree on all this rational.

>

>     >>> [...]

>

>     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.

>

> [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?

>

>


...please, how can we correct this?

Do you think that it can be fixed by
writing down & publishing the internal
procedure?



> [Jordi] However, that doesn't excuse the Board - clearly the Board

> members, at least some of them, are in the RPD list, so they also followed

> the discussions and *must have noticed* that policies that reached

> consensus and are to be ratified by them, didn't completed all the steps of

> that "internal" process.

>

>


...having an other PDWG Liaison, coming
from the BoD, could help? :-/

Thanks,
__
[0]: see also <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/010253.html>
[1]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>
[2]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG>
[3]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/thread.html#12121>
[4]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/012121.html>


Shalom,
--sb.




>     Regards,

>     S. Moonesamy

>

>     Board Chair, AFRINIC

>

>

> [...]





-- 
Best Regards !
baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <https://www.cmnog.cm> |
<https://survey.cmnog.cm>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec
vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201221/a26489c3/attachment-0001.html>