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

[Sunday Folayan]

Goubi,

First, let me be clear, I do not agree with the Board modifying the CPM. 
This is not the same as the need for the existence of 11.4 in the bylaws.

On to the existence of 11.4 in the bylaws ...

What will happen if PDWG passes a policy that will bankrupt the company? 
or could not pass a policy that will stabilize the company? Not by 
malice, but say ... by negligence or sheer exuberance?

What happens when a lack of convergence in the working group, puts the 
"distribution" company in Jeopardy.  Should there not be any safeguard?

If the PWDG therefore recognizes and accepts the existence of the 
safe-guard that the forward-looking lawyers have put in place in the 
Bylaws, for the benefit of all, What is wrong with such a help if it is 
recognized by the PDWG?

How does the fact that the PDWG then accepts the existence of that 
safeguard .... violate the bottom-up process?

Just asking, because everything up, certainly started from down!

Sunday.


On 2/22/21 6:18 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:

> Hello Jordi,

> Let me point out as well that the bylaws is a document that was 

> drafted by lawyers and that should have no relevance in the management 

> of the PDP. The fact that you are trying to create a conflict between 

> both is jeopardizing the core purpose of the bottom-up process. You 

> can’t just skip the community and its consensus and allow the board to 

> modify the CPM/PDP. The only waste of time in this entire situation is 

> trying to invent non-existent solutions that do not comply with the 

> PDP in the first place.

> Regards,

> Wijdane

>

> Le lun. 22 févr. 2021 à 10:34, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD 

> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a écrit :

>

>     Hi SM,

>

>     I fully understand the difference between community and PDWG,

>     precisely I was traying to put all them, to show that I believe,

>     everybody understands that there are several (not just 2) "groups"

>     involved in what we do "related to AFRINIC and the PDP".

>

>     Even if the situation is not urgent for you, it is for others in

>     the PDWG. Even if this is only my case, I think it is important.

>     So please, forget for a minute if it is important or not, let's

>     stick to the wording of 11.4 and my question, and let me to

>     rephrase them to exclude the emergency aspect:

>

>     Is the Board understanding that they can adopt policies only

>     related to Resources or also policies not related to resources

>     which modifying the CPM/PDP?

>

>     I've added CPM/PDP, because we can see in the CPM parts witch are

>     "clearly" related to resources, others "indirectly" related to

>     resources, and others clearly related to the PDP itself and not

>     Resources at all.

>

>     Regards,

>     Jordi

>     @jordipalet

>

>

>

>     El 21/2/21 16:23, "S. Moonesamy" <sm+af at afrinic.net

>     <mailto:sm%2Baf at afrinic.net>> escribió:

>

>         Dear Jordi,

>         At 02:26 AM 21-02-2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

>         >No, my question is not about the CPM/PDP text. I think it is

>     clear

>         >for everybody the distinction there between "AFRINIC

>         >organization/membership" vs "AFRINIC community/PDWG".

>

>         There is a distinction between the Working Group and the

>     "community",

>         i.e. the Working Group is a subset of the "community".

>

>         >My question is about the Board interpretation of the Article

>     11.4 of

>         >the bylaws. Is the Board understanding that they can (in urgent

>         >situations, such as the one we are facing) adopt policies only

>         >related to Resources or also policies that not being related to

>         >resources but modifying the PDP?

>

>         I'll have to look at the minutes of the last Board meeting to see

>         whether there was a discussion of Article 11.4. I doubt that the

>         situation could be described as urgent.  That is based on my

>     reading

>         of the members-discuss mailing list.

>

>         Regards,

>         S. Moonesamy

>

>         Board Chair, AFRINIC

>

>

>

>

>     **********************************************

>     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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210222/6ff35485/attachment-0001.html>