Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Missing ratification request documents
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Feb 17 09:10:46 UTC 2021
I agree with you and we have a precedent of chairs sending this report in copy to the list. What I’m not sure is if this happened with all the co-chairs (I wish, as you said, because transparency is key).
However, following the PDP, chairs are not obliged to do that. The problem here is not just that, is the interpretation of what is a report of the discussions. It is a very generic definition, which some participants, looking at the previous chair’s reports could say “this is fine” or “this is not enough”. So, asking for a specific format “because” this is what we got from previous chairs, is wrong and against the PDP. We will only be able to judge if the emails where having sufficient information only when we get a copy of them.
Again, to make it clear, I fully agree with you, it should have been done that way, but the way has been done is not incorrect. I hope we can verify that by having a copy from the staff or the co-chairs about those emails.
El 16/2/21 21:27, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> escribió:
Hum please see inline
Le mar. 16 févr. 2021 à 13:44, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> a écrit :
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?
Your memory is not faulty.
Your real participation in the PDP in this region started when the last former two cochairs got elected and as they never published their report to board... you can't remember that...
The problem is that you did not try to search the archives and also did not find anything wrong if reports to board were not made public...
But as I said in my previous mail... you are definitely on a mission against the "vapoware" for reasons which are now visible and you can’t even act consistently.
If your memory tells you that cochairs never publish their report to board... why are you now asking that this one be made public?
Why should these reports be kept secret?
Previous cochairs adhered to the transparency principle and always made public their report to board....
2nd: how come board would not have received a mail sent by cochairs?
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
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...
More information about the RPD