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

[rpd] Report from Recall Committee

Wed Feb 17 09:03:10 UTC 2021

In my opinion Fernando is right here.

Let’s take a legal view, because the PDP is a legal document.

The PDP states that the PDWG choose the chairs.

The PDP doesn’t provides an explicit consent to the PDWG to delegate that function.

Normally, in law, you need to have that “delegation is allowed” to be able to do so.

The PDWG could decide to provide that delegation, however that requires modifying the PDP and for that we need co-chairs, and either a meeting or the PDP section 3.6 (varying the process).

Otherwise, we could claim that any decision that the PDWG is taking, even if is not explicit in the CPM, is valid. The CPM should not be interpreted outside of the existing wording, and when there are possible missintepretations, the right thing to do is to clarify the working to avoid that.

Finally, the alternative is the Board setting a policy for that … see the summary of the discussion for a further explanation. I think the community already said they don’t want that.




El 17/2/21 2:53, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at> escribió:

Hello Gregoire

Well, the PDP makes it clear that is up to the WG to select the Co-Chairs, no one else (point 3.3). It doesn't have a fallback mechanism or even a point which allows the WG defer that decision to the Board.
This is different from when something is not mentioned at all and is considered not covered by current rules.

So anything different from what is in the PDP right now is a change in the PDP and a change in the PDP can only be done via the due process with rough consensus when we have new Co-Chairs in place. Even if the WG would decide unanimously right now to defer that decision it is something that cannot be done at the present because the current PDP as written forbids it having it clear the only way Co-Chairs can be chosen.

I keep hoping the Board will organize the elections soon and we will be able to progress in this matter with the natural way which is the WG choosing.
Hope also in the next change we have to adjust the PDP we can include the possibility for the Board to be able to select temporary/interim Co-Chairs during unforeseen situation and it is in other RIRs.


On 16/02/2021 21:50, Gregoire EHOUMI wrote:

On Feb 15, 2021, at 11:52 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


There is no provision in the current CPM for the Board to choose the Co-Chairs even in such exceptional situation like this. In my view this is unfortunately the PDP hasn't been adjusted yet for this possibility but the reality is that it does not exist anywhere in the CPM.

Let me repeat what other have said:

The PDP does not prescribe any selection mechanism and all we have done in the past was by the WG decision and acceptance.

So the WG may also decide to defer to Board to address the special situation we are in.

Let's stick to what we have. If we managed to get experienced people to act as temporary-transition Co-Chairs we may be able to improve this part of PDP as well.

If the WG could agree on the option which you seem to support above, we won’t need to defer to any other entity.

But If we continue to waste time and show our inability to self-organize, there are provisions which allows Board to fix the lack of consensus.



On 15/02/2021 13:45, Sunday Folayan wrote:

On 2/15/21 4:07 PM, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD wrote:

On Feb 12, 2021, at 6:17 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

How about instead, we follow the rules as you request and have the PDWG select interim co-chairs until the next election?


The PDWG makes decision by consensus and should select interim co-chair(s) easily if behaving as a functional WG

The WG has been spending valuable time and energy in arguing and should have spent the time to select co-chairs via a call of experienced volunteers capable of immediately acting and select the best among them.

We give it a trial and fall back to board?

I agree with this. A call for volunteers is a good start point. When there is a slate of n<3, selection is easier.

Asking the Board to manage the selection process, is unnecessary anticipation of what may not exist, at this time.


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