Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Report from Recall Committee

Sun Feb 7 19:43:25 UTC 2021

Hi Alan, Board, Appeal Committee, all,

I want to thank you and all the team for all this work.

I must say that it is unfortunate that we reached a situation like this. It is clear that several of the PDWG participants have indicated during many months to the cochairs that the PDP and the decision about consensus can't be misused or altered and that the judging of consensus must be solely based in what are valid objections and what not, which has been the major failure since the Kampala meeting, and this is now confirmed by the recall committee and their detailed analysis. Thanks again for that.

That said, there are now several open questions and issues that the board and the Appeal Committee should address with the community urgently and in parallel:

1) I understand that we will need to open an urgent election process for new chairs, this is probably the top priority. In any case, I will suggest that the board should appoint temporarily two cochairs, or ensure that the staff is taking care of any discussions in the mailing list.

2) Without going into specifics details, from my reading of all the documents, the recall committee judgement has demonstrated that the proposal "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space", actually reached consensus in both versions, but the chairs allowed unsubstantiated or irrelevant objections to block consensus. This is clearly showing also that the Appeal Committee is not doing correctly their job, as I already explained in a previous email, because they're failing to determine if the consensus decision was correct or not, which is the only reason for an Appeal Process, and in fact the Appeal Committee itself.

My suggestion here is that the Appeal Committee, taking in consideration the judgement of the Recall Committee, reviews their recent decisions and really look, like the Recall Committee did, if the objections were funded and objective, or if the chairs erred in their decisions (again, as resulted from the Recall Committee decisions).

I'm convinced that if the Appeal Committee review the judgement of consensus on the following policy proposals AFPUB-2018-GEN-001, AFPUB-2019-GEN-006 and AFPUB-2020-GEN-001, following the approach of the Recall Committee, we will save a lot of time to the community.

Not doing so, means that we need to wait for new versions, which *will not have any changes* because the lack of consensus was based on invalid objections and a new complete cycle for every policy proposal. Adding to that that there are new policy proposals from the previous meeting and I'm already working in a couple of new proposals already, not to count with other community members that may be working in others.

The PDP has nothing that doesn't allow the Appeal Committee to review their decisions based on this new situation, so I think it is perfectly appropriate that either by direct decision of the Appeal Committee, or by request of the Board, they review their work and save precious time and effort to the community.

3) The situation with the Inter-RIR transfers proposal is a bit more complex, because the mess created by the chairs. I think there is only one possible way-out, and is again what I've proposed when, several months after I submitted the first proposal, two new proposals were submitted as well and only the authors of one of the proposals agreed to talk (however it was too late for the Luanda meeting, even if I've asked months in advance the staff and the authors to organize a call and even met of the other authors in the IETF). I'm not going to repeat myself on this. I've already explained it some time ago: and I recall I've also explained that in the Luanda meeting.

By the way, this shows that the cochairs have provided, if not *false* at least *incomplete* information in their response to the Recall Committee, because they didn't call the authors of the other proposals to work together, it was my own initiative, and I repeated that several times. The staff was in copy, so they could confirm. As said, meeting in Luanda was too late, because then you can't submit a new version among all the authors of the 3 proposals.

I was also saying several times that the other two proposals were not reciprocal with some of the RIRs. I told that in the list, in the meeting, to the staff, to the other authors, and I was even insulted in the Luanda meeting because that. Other authors and even the staff were not doing their job properly. Time demonstrated that I was right.

NOW we should find the way to repeat that attempt to work together, as hopefully the Appeal Committee will need to determine that the declaration of consensus on this topic was erred and this appeal will succeed.

And once more, to demonstrate what it means consensus (concede), I'm even almost fine at 90% with one of the proposals (not mine), it just requires a change in the issue of the legacy and some editorial work.

*So finally, to avoid making this longer, can the Board and the Appeal Committee work on the issues that I've exposed?


El 6/2/21 19:30, "Alan Barrett" < at> escribió:

Dear AFRINIC Policy Development Working Group,

On 16 November 2020, a request was submitted to the AFRINIC Board in
terms of article 3.5.3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual, calling for
a recall of the PDWG Chairs. On 11 December 2020, the Board announced
the appointment of a Recall Committee to investigate the circumstances
and to determine the outcome of the recall request.

The Recall Committee has made its decision and completed its report.
I attach the report and annexures to this message.

Alan Barrett
Chair, Recall Committee
RPD mailing list
RPD at

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list