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

[rpd] Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)

Thu Feb 18 12:52:29 UTC 2021

Hi Sylvain,

I go to the end of your email first … I do not want to be considered, as a co-chair or anything related to judging consensus for policies for several reasons:
Even if I can try my best to be neutral and objective, I’ve many policy proposals in discussion. Withdrawing from them and letting other co-authors to continue could be an option, but even if I could try to be objective, *always* someone from the community will be able to tell “he is favoring this because he originally wrote it”.
I still think that my contribution can be better with policy proposals (never mind I authored them or other folks, I mean “openly discussing about policies”).
Even if it is clear in the PDP that anyone can be a co-Chair, even if not from the region, I think it is better that it is someone from the region.
I’m convinced that there is many other people that can do better than me!

Now, if you need a volunteer to chair any specific meeting that is not discussing policies, while we don’t have co-chairs, I will be happy to do so *if* nobody else volunteers.

And of course, I need to thank you for your words, don’t take my response as a lack of gratitude.

Now, to respond “in short” to the rest of your email.
The Board has the prerogative to submit a policy proposal. There is a debate, as I explained in the document, about if “only” for resource management or the PDP as well.
The Board asked the community to take a decision on the way forward.
We are in an extreme situation. In this situation, even law, will allow to break the rules “in a certain” way. For example, remember when the courts of Mauritius allowed to do a general assembly meeting, even if there was no quorum (if I recall correctly) after the Dakar meeting.
There were no objections until the date set by the board.
The community didn’t reached consensus “formally”, we just asked ourselves, and documented it, what are the options and what we suggest the Board.
Is the Board the one that will decide if that perceived consensus is what they were asked for and proceed accordingly their own decision. For a good reason, the document title is “Summary of the RPD Discussion Regarding the Decision on the Way Forward for New (transition or elected) co-Chairs after the Recall Committee Outcome”.
The Board can still send a policy proposal, we like it or not … if we don’t like, we could only change it by the next meeting …
There is one more option, which is organizing a meeting (called by the Board, as one of their prerogatives), choose a temporary chair for that meeting, and call for elections …. What it matters here is that the result is the same: the community will choose the co-chairs (option 1&2 vs 3&4).
And again, the Board still can do 3&4 … we like it or not. I’m going in circles here to clearly show that they asked us to decide, and we did. We are calling this “consensus”, may be that's the “violation” that instead of consensus we should said “it seems that the PDWG want this, as the other choices have objections”. Is not the same?
Of course, if we “start” elections and several candidates withdraw in favor of just a couple of them, as I already explained, that will be a better “elections by consensus”, but this is something we can do anyway with 1.




El 18/2/21 13:14, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at> escribió:

{start a new thread from [1]}

Dear PDWG,

Hope you are safe and well!


This PDWG has violated its own PDP by reaching a consensus non PDP-compliant. In fact, the actualités CPM (version 1.6) contains no provision which could allow the PDWG to varying the process without at least one PDWG's Chair in place.


...i first want to thank Jordi, for have right•ful•ly

decided to coordinate PDWG actions during

this post-recall PDWG's Chairs transition period.

He did well (because the PDP [2] implicitely

allows it, by leaving the howto question {see CPM

section 3.3 [3]} to the implementors), but, IMHO, Jordi

also failed to stick to only what was allowed

by the PDP [3]. This is were what Fernando

have tried to explain below is really relevant...i

can also refer to more than two emails where

Sunday is trying to enlightening that lack of PDP compliance.

Some observations or facts to consider:


•1| First, the final action made [4] on tuesday by Jordi,

on behalf of the PDWG is a good proof that if

appropriately conducted, the consensus-driven

mecanism can work very well in this AfriNIC's


•2| The PDP is *sufficiently* clear about the emergency

procedure to use when it comes to replacing

the PDWG's Chair(s) before the end of mandate(s).

•3| The PDP is also clear (see CPM section 3.6 [5])

about who from the PDWG can varying the process

(PDP) and in which kind of circonstances.

•4| This post-recall PDWG's Chairs time makes

an interesting precedent to study and without

at least one of its Chairs, the PDWG is leaved

with no mean to varying the process by itself...

•5| ...within the CPM (version 1.6) [6] even a

consensus reached by the PDWG during this

emergency time *MUST* be bond to the few

tasks allowed by the PDP (select the new PDWG's

Chairs; then continue to follow the PDP)...we

failed on it; then we are in violation to the actual PDP.

•6| Yes! by the PDP, this PDWG is allowed to do

only very few things without its Chairs. Doing

more than those things is a clear violation

of the PDP.

•7| AfriNIC's BoD has its prerogatives and we are

sure it shall act accordingly if we, PDWG, fail

to enforce our PDP. Therefore there is no need

to violate our own PDP to do something which

will be surely do soon by the BoD. That's doing

something of non incidence...

•8| With the new PDWG's Chairs in action, of course,

the fact that the PDWG can not actually varying

the process by itself (raise a problem) could

be consider and therefore handled by proposing

a DPP (Draft Policy Proposal) to change at least

it for example...

•9| Jordi has proved a good ability to conduct

the PDWG, he is therefore a proven-good candidate

as a replacement PDWG's Chair, for us, IMHO.

10| Let's back to the PDP to do the only task

we PDWG are allowed to do without our Chairs.

Sunday, please can you handle the process

to help the PDWG to enforce its PDP?


...i want to call the PDWG once more [7], to firmly

defend its PDP; because that is the most important

thing to do, IMHO, during these difficult times.

If you see things differently, i look forward

to reading you too! ;-)

Thanks & Blessed thursday!


[1]: <>

[2]: <>

[3]: <>

[4]: <>

[5]: <>

[6]: <>

[7]: <>



Le mer. 17 févr. 2021 02:46, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> a écrit :

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.



_______________________________________________ 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