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

[rpd] Missing ratification request documents

Tue Feb 16 08:51:06 UTC 2021

Hi Darwin,

While I agree that the Inter-RIR proposal is under appeal, the chairs have done correctly their job according to the PDP. The other proposal is not under Appeal.

It is the duty of the chairs to follow the PDP, which including sending a proposal, that according to their decision (right or not) reached consensus, to the Board. They DID.
It is the duty of the Board to FOLLOW the PDP.
It is the duty of the Board and staff to not amend the PDP with processes that aren’t in the PDP and not adopted by the community as policy proposals, even less because a previous co-chair have done it that way. What is done before sets a precedent only if it is publicly known and accepted, and clearly documented. Which is not the case. What will be next? The staff or the Board to define a new “secret” procedure for any other section of the PDP????? This is absolutely irrational.
It is the duty of the Board, when a policy proposal is under Appeal to hold the ratification until the Appel is resolved. The PDP doesn’t state that they should ratify a policy “immediately”. May be this should be corrected and stated clearly that they should delay only the ratification in case of pending Appeals on that proposal.
It is the duty of the Board, if they believe they can’t ratify a proposal, to state openly why and talk with the community about that, and even suggest a new discussion round, but NEVER, to hold a ratification. Otherwise, the community can decide to modify the PDP and no need the ratification of the Board anymore, as it is the case of RIPE, for example. I think that will be bad, but inaction of the Board or PDP violation, will make that happening.

Definitively we need to see anyway, the message sent to the Board. If nothing relevant is missing, then the Board has violated the PDP, and they shoul correct the mistake, because I’m convinced it was not done in bad faith. We all make mistakes.

So co-chairs, or Madhvi, could you forward the relevant emails to the list, so we can see if anything was missing from what it was sent to the Board?




El 16/2/21 9:34, "dc at" <dc at> escribió:

I definitely would like to see the email that the Co-Chairs have sent to the Board as per Owen suggestion.

Nevertheless I disagree with:

so that the board may proceed accordingly.

It doesn't make sense IMHO to proceed with ratifications when at least the “Inter-RIR transfer policy” has been so controversial.


On 16 Feb 2021, at 09:22, Noah <noah at> wrote:

I disagree.... there are process issues that are being ignored here.


On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, 08:09 Frank Habicht, <geier at> wrote:

I agree.
Thanks Owen.


On 16/02/2021 07:53, Owen DeLong wrote:

> The former working group co-chairs claim that they sent the notice for board ratification of two policies.


> Specifically:

> Board Prerogative

> Inter-RIR Transfer Policy


> The board claims that they did not receive it.


> Therefore I request that the co-chairs please re-send their email to board to this list and to the board

> so that we can all see the email in question and so that the board may proceed accordingly.


> Since this is an action of co-chairs taken prior to recall, there should be no problem with the co-chairs

> sending the document again.


> Owen



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



RPD mailing list
RPD at

RPD mailing list
RPD at

_______________________________________________ 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list