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

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear PDWG,

Le jeu. 18 févr. 2021 à 13:53, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :


> Hi Sylvain,

>

>

Hi Jordi,
Thanks for your kick response, brother.



>

> [...]

>

>    1. I’m convinced that there is many other people that can do better

>    than me!

>

>

...yes! but it's about volunteering, not only optimal competencies :-/



>

>

> 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.

>


Thanks, but the need is not there right now :-/



> And of course, I need to thank you for your words, don’t take my response

> as a lack of gratitude.

>


...brother, feel free to express your view and allow me
to do the same please.



> Now, to respond “in short” to the rest of your email.

> 1. 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.

> 2. The Board asked the community to take a decision on the way forward.

>


...the BoD did what they did, is it a valuable raison to justify
to varying the process out of the CMP section 3.6?



> 3. 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.

>


Yes! the BoD asked for an authorization, from the court
and they obtained it, because they were in serious
difficulty with respect of the Maurician incorporation
law...in the PDWG actual situation, fortunately, the
PDP has a good provision ready for us. What's the
problem with it?



>

> 4. There were no objections until the date set by the board.

>


Ok! maybe the process was conducted too fast :-)
...you have included part of my comment!



>

> 5. The community didn’t reached consensus “formally”, we just asked

> ourselves, and documented it, what are the options and what we suggest the

> Board.

>


...they ask what they want,we do what's PDP compliant!

please see below:

CPM section 3.3
~°~
[...]
If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the
Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term.

If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting,
the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at
the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate
in the selection process for a temporary Chair.
~°~



>

> 6. 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 PDP don't states that the Board is part of this
*selection*
process.

They can get into the game if and only if the PDWG
fail to enforce the PDP without its PDWG's Chairs.



> - 7. 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 …

>


...where is it?



>

> 8. 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).

>


See above where i quoted CPM section 3.3.
Note that i have separated the two paragraphs. The reason is
because a temporary PDWG's Chair is only usefull to chair
a meeting.



>

> 9. 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?

>


...look Jordi, the PDP has not define any mean to *select*
PDWG's Chairs. Consensus is perfect, as election through
the majority.

Let's just enforce the PDP as per the CPM section 3.3.



>

> 10. 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.

>


...again, the word *election* is not used in the PDP, the right word is
*selection*.

Are you getting me now !

...again, i'm proposing to *select* Jordi as one of the replacement for the
remainding term of the recalled PDWG's Chairs.

Any objection ?

...i look forward to reading you soon.
Thanks.

Shalom,
--sb.



>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

>

>

> {start a new thread from [1]}

>

>

>

> Dear PDWG,

>

> Hope you are safe and well!

>

>

>

> <tl;dr>

>

> 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.

>

> <tl;dr>

>

> [...]

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210218/68035cd3/attachment.html>