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 18:24:59 UTC 2021

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.

è This is an interesting question for the Board. Maybe they could respond already? The question is about ratification in case of an appeal (in general, not any specific proposal). Would the board wait for the appeal resolution before proceeding or they will ratify and then go back if the appeal succeeds? If this is not clear, we may need to add one paragraph in the PDP to easily resolve that.

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

è Yes and not. To be true, this need to be also in stone in the PDP, which is the way it is in other RIRs, but not in Afrinic. The PDP need to ensure that the board can, in case of trouble for the organization “hold” a policy from ratification.

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.

è I don’t agree here. The chairs can’t judge the impact analysis if the community decides to ignore it (or not trust it, or believe is wrong, or whatever). I’ve seen several “wrong” impact analysis in several RIRs, and this is only proved if the policy is allowed to go thru. However, if the organization is put in risk, that’s why the PDP should ensure that the board has the prerogative to justify the “no ratification and return to the PDWG”.

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 co-chairs?

è ** YES! **


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