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

[Noah]

For your other responses, we can revisit them with a DPP in the near
future, however.....

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 9:33 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


>

>

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

>


In this case, the community aka the PDWG did not ignore the staff impact
analysis. In fact resource members even tasked AFRINIC member services to
feedback on the Impact of  e.g the Resource Transfer Proposal. Participants
in this working group including myself have repeatedly pointed to the staff
impact analysis of the transfer proposals and to a lesser extent the board
prerogative proposal.

The fact is that a number of members of the PDWG who have participated in
the discussions have never ignored the impact analysis which is why some
requested the policy liaison to seek further clarity on the valid issues of
reciprocity while others tasked the member services to feedback on
financial impact to the Org.

(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.

>


In my case and that of few I know, in fact trust the staff impact analysis
to be valid and serious for the case of resource transfer policy and am not
sure if folks ever took time to go through the analysis here;
https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3#impact


>



> 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”.

>


Why wait for the organization to be put at risk yet members of the PDWG are
already anticipating risks from the said proposals. I would rather the PDWG
resolved the risks of the proposal taking into consideration that valid
objections and staff impact analysis issues have been addressed before the
WG managers can send the proposal to the board for ratification with a full
blessing of the entire WG.

We have to be a responsible PDWG Jordi......

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210407/0b9f4df6/attachment-0001.html>