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

[Wijdane Goubi]

Hello Sunday,

The CPM states clearly in the very first lines of it that it is a reference
document where policies are created through a bottom-up Policy Development
Process of *consultation, discussion and consensus* through which policy
proposals are submitted, debated (by the community) and adopted (by
AFRINIC). All *ratified* and implemented policies that have gone through
the PDP are integrated into the CPM.

The CPM states also in the section of approval: “The Working Group Chair(s)
shall recommend the draft policy to the AFRINIC Board of Directors *for
approval* if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group.
The recommendation shall include a report of the discussions of the draft
policy and feedback from the Last Call. The draft policy shall be ratified
by the AFRINIC Board of Directors.”

Which implies, if  the PDWG ever decided by consensus to pass a certain
policy, the board of directors can question their decision ,ensure there
isn’t any sort of negligence, ignorance or carelessness and then decide
whether to ratify it or not. Yet, we cannot keep creating different types
of scenarios that we might never encounter or face and consume time
discussing them unless we really need to address a matter otherwise we’ll
always end up either violating the CPM/PDP or on our way to violate them.

Wijdane

Le lun. 22 févr. 2021 à 19:09, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com> a
écrit :


> 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> 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> 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

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210223/19e521d6/attachment.html>