[rpd] Missing ratification request documents

[Paschal Ochang]

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:

>

> Owen,

>

> 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
you said


>

> 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?

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/012121.html

>

>

> 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.

>

> Owen

>

>


-- 
Kind regards,

Paschal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210216/85dde66d/attachment-0001.html>