[rpd] Report from Recall Committee

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Fernando,

 

Even if I fully agree with you … the evil is in the details and in the end, it will come to the Board interpretation of the article and also if the Board acts against the community wish, then the community should enforce the amendment of the Board decision. Can you imagine how much this will take and if we can achieve any results?

 

Even up to the point that the bylaws talk about recourses, not the PDP itself. In fact, could the Board provide their interpretation about that?

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 17/2/21 16:56, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210218/7bb11045/attachment-0001.html>