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

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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Wed Apr 7 18:01:40 UTC 2021

On 07/04/2021 14:43, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

> <clip>.


> 1. 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.


That part of bylaws means nothing to PDWG. If they would ever do that it
would open a precedent that has the potential to question AfriNic
internationally to continuing to existing and be recognized as a RIR.
Bylaws is made by members-only and members-only are not allowed to
determine unilaterally what the policies will be unless that is give to
them by PDWG which has never happened.

Therefore that part of the bylaws should be rejected, dismissed and
ideally removed by the next General Assembly.


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


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

> <rpd at <mailto: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.


> Cheers,


> Noah



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

> 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


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

More information about the RPD mailing list