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

[Paschal Ochang]

Dear Jordi,

I believe both the staff and the board owe the community an explanation on
the following two emails. If AK’s email is true, then the board has
deliberately deceived the community, which is a very serious matter.
As for the policies, both of them have already passed, the board has
dismissed the appeal committee over the violation of their own ToR, so now
the board should proceed to ratify both policies. Unless they can explain
to the community why the above situation has happened, I don’t see the need
for  the new chair to do anything in this case. The dismissal of the
co-chairs has no relevence to the decision they have made during their
office time, and for that we have a separate process from the recall, which
is the appeal process. These two committees are independant and both
processes should not be confused , and since both policies have followed
the PDP as AK has demonstrated, I fail to see the reason why the board is
not processing it.

So to sum up,

1. We have the board denying receiving and sending the letter which was
previously confirmed to be received as madhvi has replied to the letter in
question.

2. We have the staff denying to losing the letter that the person herself
has replied to

3. We have the board dismissing the appeal committee while publicly
violating the ToR themselves

4. We have the board and staff refusing to process the policy ratification
based on their own lies and violation above.

It is very bewildering that our secretary which is part of the policy
liaison, has replied to the email, while the board claimed that the same
email was not received when it was obviously sent.

Please find attached as well.

Best regards,

Paschal

On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


> I need to disagree with you here.

>

>

>

> Both proposals reached consensus. That’s a fact.

>

>

>

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

> be resolved.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 7/4/21 18:30, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:

>

>

>

>

>

> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, 18:54 John Hay, <john at sanren.ac.za> wrote:

>

> Hi Fernando,

>

>

>

> Even if that proposal got lost between co-chairs and AfriNIC, it should

> not be a big deal.

>

>

>

> It is a big deal, which is why WG participants are concerned and are

> asking the former co-chairs to forward it to the rpd list as FYI.

>

>

>

> The main interest is that report that was prepared because that report

> will indicate how the so said consensus was achieved and if the PDP process

> was followed.

>

>

>

>

>

> Once we have new co-chairs, the authors can just submit their last version.

>

>

>

> In agreement....

>

>

>

> If we got consensus on the last version,

>

>

>

> Co-chairs declaring consensus does not mean it is what it is, because

> consensus is a path not a forced destination and the WG is still in

> disagreement on the said proposals.

>

>

>

> FWIW, not everyone within the WG agrees that the proposals archived

> consensus and that is why an appeal was launched and submitted by a number

> of working group participants against the Resource Transfer Proposal

> because appeals form part of the PDP.

>

>

>

>

>

> surely we should get it again on the same version or with very little

> tweaking,

>

>

>

> Major tweaking if you asked me.

>

>

>

> Noah

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

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

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> 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.

>

>


-- 
Kind regards,

Paschal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210407/667c40e3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mail screenshot.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46981 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210407/667c40e3/attachment-0001.jpg>