[rpd] ratified policies - something missing so they are in the agenda of the board?

Wed Feb 10 09:45:05 UTC 2021

Jodi,

See my responses inset:

On 2/10/21 10:26 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>
> Hi Sunday,
>
> That’s why we need to see what the chairs have sent to the board and 
> the template.
>

For transparency sake, and in a Cc ... Not because you will want to edit 
or audit before it is sent.

> If the chairs didn’t used the template, but all the information that 
> the PDP indicates, was already in the email sent to the board, then 
> they chairs fulfilled his duty on this regard.
>

Correct!

> As I’ve already explained, I understand that the board, or AFRINIC, as 
> an organization, want to have a uniform way to have the policies sent 
> for ratification. That’s perfectly valid! However, that can’t impose 
> the community (and the chairs are part of that), new “duties”, or 
> alter the way they work according to the PDP.
>

If the Board make a request, and the WG Chairs and Staff have no problem 
meeting the request, and the request does not vary the PDP ... I think 
we need not fret about that.

> Otherwise, tomorrow, AFRINIC (or the board) can request something 
> else, and the next day something else, and so on, and all that can be 
> used (even if in good faith) to delay, or nullify the work of the 
> community.
>

Let us not be pre-emptive here. Let us wait till tomorrow, and another 
set of Co-Chairs, who will definitely chart their own course.

> It is not about micromanagement, there is a very simple way to get the 
> same and not impose it to the chairs or community:
>
>  1. Chairs send the report by email (plain text should be fine).
>  2. Staff prepares the template.
>  3. If staff believes something is missing, ask the chairs know.
>
> I will add to that, that all those emails should be copied to the 
> list, for transparency
>

Agreed, on the need for transparency.

> .
>
> (there are possible variations to this, but the point here is not to 
> imposse anything to the chairs that is not already clearly defined in 
> the PDP)
>

If the chairs choose to, why not? We once had a Co-chair produce a neat 
summary of pending discussions in a clear and useful tabular form. Quite 
appreciated. No one demanded it from subsequent Co-Chairs.

> This way the community is not enforced to any steps not depicted in 
> the PDP, but the AFRINIC organization/board can self-manage as much as 
> they wish.
>
> This is exactly what we got with the ToR of the AC, where the ToR is 
> modifying the PDP without following the PDP. At least section 5 of the 
> ToR are impossing steps and rules that aren’t part of the PDP and 
> never have been incorporated by consensus in the PDP.
>

And with the Section 5 of the ToR, no one agreed that the Board is right.

So ... Let us be careful in being critical of everything.

Sunday.

> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 10/2/21 10:15, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com 
> <mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com>> escribió:
>
> Jordi,
>
> Wait, Wait, wait:
>
> *"I understand that the staff created a template, but it is not part 
> of the PDP, and that is a modification of the PDP, that we all know, 
> requires to be passed via a policy proposal".*
>
> We are getting into unnecessary details. How can this be a violation 
> the PDP?
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, the PDP states:
>
> *“**3.4.4 Approval*
>
> *The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the 
> AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the 
> Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include a 
> report of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the 
> Last Call. The draft policy shall be ratified by the AFRINIC Board of 
> Directors.”*
>
> So, in there, you will see:
>
> 1. WG Chairs shall recommend ...
> 2. The recommendation shall include a report of discussions and 
> feedbacks from the last call.
>
> What is the better way to do this, than having a template for 
> consistency and tracking? That is purely operational! That the Staff 
> developed and shared this with the WG Chairs, is all towards 
> efficiency and smooth operations.
>
> I think we should focus more on goals and outcomes, instead of 
> micromanaging actions, such as insisting the WG chairs to first 
> request for approval from the PDWG that the want to email the Board.
>
> We need not spoil the broth with too much cooking please.
>
> Sunday.
>
> On 2/10/21 9:25 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>
>     Hi Madhvi,
>
>     Tks for your quick response and explanation.
>
>     I understand that the staff created a template, but it is not part
>     of the PDP, and that is a modification of the PDP, that we all
>     know, requires to be passed via a policy proposal.
>
>     The PDP indicate:
>
>     “3.4.4 Approval
>
>     The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the
>     AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of
>     the Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall
>     include a report of the discussions of the draft policy and
>     feedback from the Last Call. The draft policy shall be ratified by
>     the AFRINIC Board of Directors.”
>
>     Could that template be published (or attached to your response),
>     so we all understand it?
>
>     >From Paschal email (yesterday), I understand that the chairs sent
>     their report to the board email.
>
>     The PDP doesn't state anything about timing, and it seems that the
>     board complaining about some timing issues to the co-chairs. That
>     will be a PDP violation.
>
>     Can you also forward to the community a copy of what the chairs
>     sent to the board and the board response? There should be nothing
>     secret there, but we are in a very anomalous situation if the
>     board has rejected the report and the report was following the PDP.
>
>     I must repeat that the board can’t ask the co-chairs for something
>     different (neither something else) that what the PDP describes,
>     because that constitutes a policy violation.
>
>     I understand your wish to have an internal and “unitform”
>     template, but that template, in my opinion is not a duty of the
>     chairs, and instead of the staff assisting the chairs preparing
>     it, it should be the staff “adding” that template to what was
>     already sent by the chairs to the board.
>
>     We really need to know all the details and the real situation.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Jordi
>
>     @jordipalet
>
>     El 10/2/21 5:28, "Madhvi Gokool" <madhvi at afrinic.net
>     <mailto:madhvi at afrinic.net>> escribió:
>
>     Hello Jordi
>
>     Your queries to staff  in email below refer.
>
>     The co-chairs were made aware  of /that :-
>
>     1.the template of the ratification report  to assist them with the
>     function.
>
>     2.each proposal that is sent for ratification needs its own report.
>
>     3.they are responsible to send the ratification reports  to
>     board at afrinic.net <mailto:board at afrinic.net> .
>
>     4.The Policy Liaison assists them with the drafting, etc.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Madhvi
>
>     On 09/02/2021 12:46 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>
>         Questions for the staff:
>
>         a) There is an internal procedure for that?
>
>         b) Have the chairs got the relevant instructions?
>
>         c) Can you copy to the RPD list on a and b above?
>
>     _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
>     RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>     **********************************************
>     IPv4 is over
>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     http://www.theipv6company.com
>     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.
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     RPD mailing list
>
>     RPD at afrinic.net  <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>
>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210210/36be7300/attachment.html>