[rpd] Report from Recall Committee

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi Jordi

On 17/02/2021 06:03, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

> <clip>

>

> 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.

>

If you are referring to article 11.4 I think this is very controversial 
thing, even if it is stated in the bylaws because if done in such way it 
voids ICP-2. The is reason is because the PDP does not currently allow 
the Board to do that, so it is irrelevant to this context that the 
bylaws do. Bylaws is not the right place to regulate that, PDP is. And 
different from ARIN the PDWG prerogatives are not a concession or a 
'gift' that Board gives to the community.

Article 11.5 would make total sense, only if PDWG would have made this 
delegation to the Board in the PDP for urgent cases. That currently does 
not exist.

PDP makes it clear at point 3.2: "/*All policies* are developed *by the 
Internet community* following the three principles of openness, 
transparency and fairness./" - so no exception.

Regards
Fernando


> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 17/2/21 2:53, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com 

> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> 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.

>

> Regards

> Fernando

>

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

>

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

>         <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

>

>         Folks

>

>         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.

>

>     —

>

>     Gregoire

>

>

>

>         Regards

>         Fernando

>

>         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 delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

>

>                     How about instead, we follow the rules as you

>                     request and have the PDWG select interim co-chairs

>                     until the next election?

>

>                     Owen

>

>                 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.

>

>             Sunday.

>

>

>             _______________________________________________

>

>             RPD mailing list

>

>             RPD at afrinic.net  <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>

>             https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd  <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>

>         _______________________________________________

>         RPD mailing list

>         RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>         <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list 

> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> 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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210217/a78761f2/attachment-0001.html>