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

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

Noah noah at
Wed Apr 7 18:16:01 UTC 2021

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:52 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at>

> 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).


Hi Jordi,

So yes, this is clear now and that was my submission that the process was
not followed as confirmed by recall committee indeed.


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

> has consensus**.


> What I’m talking is about process:


> 1. Chairs declare consensus.

> 2. Chairs send it for ratification.



We need to fix this part within the PDP so that co-chairs decisions are put
on hold pending AC determination otherwise it doesn't make sense.

The rest of the points 3, 4, 5 you make, would not be necessary if the PDP
process was followed. The board in its fiduciary duty can choose not to
ratify such a policy in order to protect the Org but what is puzzling to me
is co-chairs ignoring not only WG valid objections but also staff impact
analysis and forge ahead with a recommendation for ratification of a
proposal that would impact the Organization.

I mean, it is becoming more and more clear that as a WG, we ought to take
our responsibilities very seriously and ensure that we select *responsible*

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

More information about the RPD mailing list