Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Missing ratification request documents
amelnaud at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 13:22:00 UTC 2021
1st: How would the cochairs send a WG discussions report and ratification
request to board without Cc’ing the rpd list?
This constitutes a clear violation of the transparency principle and long
standing practices of the WG...( report to board always made public)
2nd: how come board would not have received a mail sent by cochairs?
And you are now asking former cochairs to resend the report and copied
Did you forget the saga of the said inter-transfer policy, the staff
analysis on the board prerogatives?
Forgot the legal advice on the matter?
May this convince those who are still hesitant to see some of your bad
motives and connivance as you never supported that the “vaporware” to
become a vibrant RIR for a continent of great people.
Le mar. 16 févr. 2021 à 12:08, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a écrit :
> On Feb 16, 2021, at 03:39 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 1:50 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Such as?
>> An email was sent. (to the best of my knowledge, having no reason to
>> disbelieve claims from the co-chairs)
>> It apparently was not received by the board.
>> How does sending it again violate process?
> The bottom up PDP is open and transparent..... go figure.
> That doesn’t answer the question… Are you claiming that resending the
> previous email would somehow not be open or transparent?
> I fail to see how you can make that case, especially if the former
> co-chairs copy this list as I requested. Seems to me that would be
> entirely open, transparent, and compliant with the process as defined in
> the PDP and CPM.
> If you think otherwise, you’re going to need to present a better case than
> some trump-style assertion without details or relevance.
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD