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
Tue Feb 23 13:26:48 UTC 2021

Hello Wijdane,

I read you clearly, and I understand what you quote. You obviously did
not address the issue I raised about  "What happens when a lack of
convergence in the working group, puts the "distribution" company in
Jeopardy.  Should there not be any safeguard?"

Regarding your assuming one is throwing up unforseen senarios, who had
the inclination that some people will rather cling to some positions,
rather than seekk consensus as best as possible? I looked again at what
you quoted: ...  "*consultation, discussion and consensus*" Where is the
voting? Think also about some safeguard.

We are making progress.


On 2/23/21 2:15 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:


> 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

> <mailto:sfolayan at>> 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 <mailto:rpd at>> 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

>> <mailto:sm%2Baf at>> 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 ?


>> 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 <mailto:RPD at>




>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>




> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


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

More information about the RPD mailing list