Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Missing ratification request documents
pascosoft at gmail.com
Tue Feb 16 15:47:34 UTC 2021
Hello find below my comments inline
On Tuesday, February 16, 2021, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2021, at 05:22 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
> I’ve been on this list for a long time… I don’t recall any of the co-chair
> requests to the board for ratification being sent to this list, yet you say
> this has always happened?
> Is my memory so faulty?
> 2nd: how come board would not have received a mail sent by cochairs?
> Is this not the reason why it's okay for them to show or resend the
report . You may need to show us evidence that this has always happened as
> I don’t know why they didn’t receive it. If you feel this is a relevant
> question, then by all means, please pursue whatever investigation you feel
> is necessary with the appropriate authorities.
> And you are now asking former cochairs to resend the report and copied
> the list?
> Well I see nothing wrong asking someone who was in an office to present
you with a document that was sent by him while in office
> Yes, I do. What other action would be appropriate under such circumstance?
> Did you forget the saga of the said inter-transfer policy, the staff
> analysis on the board prerogatives?
> I don't see how this influences any saga. If it's resent it can be dealt
with appropriately just oen has said.
> No, but I also do not forget the public discussion and the determination
> of the co-chairs. I have not made any attempt to influence what the board
> will do with the correspondence once they receive it, merely asked that it
> be resent to them and to the community so that it can be verified to have
> been received and then dealt with appropriately.
> Forgot the legal advice on the matter?
> No, I have not forgotten that, either. Again, I have not called for the
> board to take any specific action with respect to either policy, but I do
> not see any reason that should preclude a resending of the correspondence.
> 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.
> I see no bad motives here only a person giving his contributions on the
way forward. Character assassination is not applaudable.
> This borders on ad hominem, sir and is not an accurate or valid
> representation of my statements or my feelings towards AFRINIC and the
> AFRINIC community.
> Anyone who sees bad motives behind what I have done here is mistaken in
> their perceptions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD