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

[Sunday Folayan]

Jordi,

First of all, A lot of thoughts and work went into the summary of the 
discussions that you made. Your contributions and efforts are quite 
appreciated. Merci Beacoup.

Having said that, I have not changed my position since you started the 
Pre co-chair selection coordination, (ie Follow the provisions of the 
CPM, appoint WG Chairs, do not ask the Board to appoint WG Chairs) It 
may not be so popular in terms of how many times it has been repeated, 
but it is consistent with the CPM.

Regarding the deadline and the transmission you made to the Board, the 
purpose of the deadline was to give an input to the Board, supposedly 
before its meeting, but ... Does the WG need any Board action? The 
answer is NO! Was that a procedural error? YES. Am I complaining now? 
NO!  Can it be rectified? YES!

What is your take on Sylvian's request on the need to follow the CPM 
provisions?

At some point, you mentioned not having a preference, about the probable 
course of action. Perhaps it is time to reveal your preference. Do you 
agree with following the subsisting provisions of the CPM?

Sunday.


On 2/18/21 10:47 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> Hi Sunday,

>

> I started by saying that if someone else want to do it … and nobody 

> responded. I even pointed that may be the RC can do it.

>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012299.html (also see 

> previous emails asking the Board and CEO to move on, etc.)

>

> We had a deadline (17^th ), during all those days, nobody objected, 

> nobody voluntered. I stayed silent about my own personal opinion, and 

> a few hours before the deadline, released the summary.

>

> If anyone volunterred ahead of the deadline, I will just provided him 

> the notes that I was taking, so he/she could have continued.

>

> So I can’t agree in your point about this.

>

> So complaining afterwards, and not having volunteered, is like what we 

> say in spain "Like the dog in the manger, neither eats nor lets eat", 

> not sure if this has a better translation in English in terms of an 

> equivalent expression.

>

> I’m sorry to be a person of “actions”, but definitively will not “wait 

> forever” if nobody else is acting. So yes, I’m guilty for that. Guilty 

> for ensuring that we provide inputs before a deadline that was set to 

> the PDWG.

>

> I will love to see if the staff can do their own review of all the 

> inputs and can say that the conclusion is different …

>

> Let’s see if that happens.

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> El 18/2/21 21:23, "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at skannet.com 

> <mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com>> escribió:

>

> Sylvain,

>

> 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 with:

>

> *"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 Chair"*

>

>

>

> 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

>

> Sunday.

>

> 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

>

>     PDWG.

>

>     •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]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/thread.html#12428>

>

>     [2]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP>

>

>     [3]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG>

>

>     [4]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/012425.html>

>

>     [5]: <https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#Varying-Process>

>

>     [6]: <https://afrinic.net/cpm-1-6>

>

>     [7]: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/012358.html>

>

>     Shalom,

>

>     --sb.

>

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210218/9c1d13ef/attachment-0001.html>