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

[rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs Selection pursuant to Section 3.3 of CPM |

Wed Apr 7 17:43:26 UTC 2021

Hi Noah,

We are talking about different things here. Forget about for a minute about if I believe we should have “this or that” inter-RIR policy.

I fully agree with you that the inter-RIR *didn’t reached consensus* (or said in another way, the process was wrongly followed by the chairs, as confirmed by the recall).

However, the chairs declared consensus and unless the appeal succeed, *it has consensus*.

What I’m talking is about process:
Chairs declare consensus.
Chairs send it for ratification.
If there is an appeal, the board has to wait for the appeal to be resolved before ratifying it.
Board could *in any case* in order to “protect” the organization, *decide* that a policy can’t be ratified and resend it to the PDWG (in other RIRs this is even clearly stated in the PDP). But the board need to have very serius criteria for doing so.
Board could ratify a proposal but if they don’t agree with it, considering the bylaws, they could also at the same time, approve a “contrary” policy, which will be in place immediately *until* it is endorsed by the community at the next meeting. If not endorsed, it will then be withdrawed.

El 7/4/21 19:20, "Noah" <noah at> escribió:

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:48 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at> wrote:

I need to disagree with you here.

Both proposals reached consensus. That’s a fact.

No Jordi the Resource Transfer Policy with all its multiple versions, v.1 v.2, v.3 and I believe v.4 did not reach consensus due to lack of following the process.

I know you are obsessed with wanting to see an IPv4 Inter-RIR transfer policy in place within our AFRINIC service region but that has to only happen through a clear PDP process and with all valid objections addressed including the serious financial implication that AFRINIC staff indicated when tasks by its resource members not withstanding staff impact analysis.

One of them is pending on an appeal, so the board need to wait for that to be resolved.

Yes and that is part of the process and the appeals state clearly why that specific proposal never achieved consensus and why it should be taken back to the WG for further discussion.

In any case, the board could return both proposals to the PDWG, if they have *strong* reasons to object to the ratification.

They could even decide that they ratify the proposal but also take a “contrary” proposal, which will take immediate effect, to be endorsed by the community in the next meeting, which can leave without effect the ratification.

I would not support such a rushed move by the AFRINIC board. If a proposal has issues, it's the role of the WG to fine tune it until the WG agrees that yes, now we have a proposal that the co-chairs can send to the board for consideration like we have done with so many proposals in the past.

Therefore, your piecemeal approach is very dangerous and we have taken some lessons from past mistakes as a WG that we can not afford to rush with piecemeal proposals just because folks can come back and fine tune the said policy. Why not the WG resolve all issues with the proposal before it can be sent for ratification.

FWIW, Inter-RIR transfer proposals especially for our region ought to be treated with caution in light of all the fraud and we shall not blindly rush things here Jordi.



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.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list