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

[rpd] Selecting WG Co-Chairs: Was Re: Can a Consensual Decision of the PDWG Violate the PDP? (was: Report from Recall Committee)

Sunday Folayan sfolayan at
Thu Feb 18 20:17:28 UTC 2021


You wrote

*"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?" *

Enforcing the PDP is not the role of anyone person. We all should be
active and vigilant.

I can initiate things, by pointing out that many wrongs do not make a
right. Sometimes, in haste, we fail to look at the details, nor pause to
look at small details. No matter how far one may have gone in a wrong
direction, it is best to course-correct as soon as possible.

Jordi acted in good faith,  with some level of urgency to move the group
forward, but missed a very important step ... ie properly volunteer to
be a temporary WG Co-Chair, and wait for some acclamation. It will not
have called for his legitimacy being questioned, specifically by Arnaud

*"Who appointed  you in this role? don’t you think board, staff are
following discussions and can make their own minds and judgment on the
discussions and  the  outcomes? Or is your intention to influence or
bias discussion".*

I still insist that the provisions of the PDP, according to the CPM is:

*"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

See the word selection process there? That is what we need to define by
consensus. As a working group, we can select our Co-Chairs, by simply
asking the staff/Policy Liaison to call for volunteers, and shepherd the
process, reverting always to the WG for guidance, when needed (which
ultimately defines the process)

I like the proposition by Noah, specifically:

*"Can AFRINIC staff and specifically Madhvi take up the lead and work
with the WG to ensure that its following the CPM to fill the vacancy. I
dont support the rushed work that was done here by Jordi since there is
already claims of misinteretation. Please afford this working group time
to self organise"*

I urge everyone to adopt it, as a way forward with an Affirmative YES. 
Personally, I support the above CPM-compatible line of action.

Anyone can also propose some other CPM-Compatible action


On 2/18/21 1:04 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote:

> {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>


> ...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]: <>


> Shalom,

> --sb.


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

> <mailto: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.


> Regards

> Fernando


> [...]




> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list