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

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

Eddy Kayihura eddy at
Thu Apr 8 09:05:45 UTC 2021

[French Below]

Dear PDWG,

I have been reading your exchanges with much interest and allow me to share my thoughts on the matter here.

I trust the previous Co-chairs to be men of their words.

I trust my team that was tasked to investigate the logs and came back empty-handed.

I trust myself and my fellow Board members who have all confirmed that they have not received such an email.

I also trust that the PDWG realise that there is a process in place that must be followed and hiding an email does not derail the process.

So, as a constructive way forward, I suggest the following:

A) Can the previous Co-chairs kindly forward the reports in question to the RPD list so that they are on public record?

B) Once the new Co-chairs are in place, the PDWG agrees on how to move forward with the documents;

C) We go back to discussing the issue at hand as indicated by the subject of this thread.


Eddy Kayihura



Cher PDWG,

Je lis avec intérêt les divers échanges et permettez-moi de partager mes idées sur ce sujet.

J’ai confiance que les anciens Co-chairs tiennent leur parole.

J’ai confiance en mon équipe qui a analysé les logs et n’y ont rien trouvé.

J’ai confiance en moi-même et aux mes collègues du Board qui ont tous confirmés ne pas avoir reçu cet email.

J’ai aussi confiance que les PDWG réalise que nous avons des procédures en place et que cacher un email ne peut en aucun cas dérailler la procédure.

Je fais donc la proposition suivante dans le but d’évoluer d’une manière constructive :

A. Est-ce que les Co-chairs précédents peuvent renvoyer les rapports en questions sur la liste RPD and qu’ils deviennent public ?
B. Des que les nouveaux Co-chairs seront en position, le PDWG pourra s’accorder sur la procédure a suivre avec ces documents ;
C. Nous continuons a discuter sur le sujet qui est bien référencé dans le titre de l’email.


Eddy Kayihura


Sent: Thursday, 8 April 2021 12:28
To: rpd <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs Selection pursuant to Section 3.3 of CPM |

Hi Noah,

I think we are mixing up things here. Long email, but I think is important to understand this thread.

I was talking “in general”, not about any specific policy proposal.

So, when I say that the chairs can’t judge the impact analysis as part of the determination of consensus, I mean in “any” policy proposal. The PDP doesn’t state anything about that, among other reasons, because that will break what it means consensus. Consensus is determined by objections of the community. If the community believes that the impact analysis is correct, the community can object to a policy based on that.

However, the community can also ignore the impact analysis, because a) they don’t think is correct, or b) they simply decide that it is not a community relevant issue.

For example, an impact analysis may consider that a policy *if implemented* in time frame “x” or using method “y”, can be dangerous for the organization. However, the community may believe that this is resolved by implementing the policy in phases, or “3x”, and/or using method “z”.

This can happen because the impact analysis comes late (which happened many many many times) and the staff has not considered other choices, or just because the community discovers a better way to do things than the staff (more people, more eyes and brains to look into a problem and provide possible solutions). It can also happen because the staff is interpreting something in the policy in the wrong way and gets clarified in the policy meeting, which happened also several times.

In addition to that, the board could *also*, when working in the policy ratification, believe that there are alternative ways to do it, or balance between the benefits and the cost, etc. In fact, even could happen in the other way around: the impact analysis may be “ok” for a proposal, reach consensus and later on, the board in the ratification find something that is not good.

To put all this in context, we shall remember that a policy doesn’t state, the implementation timing and in general, should avoid implementation/operational details, but that doesn’t preclude a proposal, authors or community to provide inputs or hints on all that.

Yes, the PDWG should be responsible when evaluating proposals and that means *ALSO* to look at the impact analysis “with a grain of salt” (and I personally always read and discuss the anlysis impact of every proposal as it is very helpful). We have the right to disagree or even ignore it. The community good doesn’t neccesarily match 100% with the organization good, and in terms of policies the community decision is *on top* of the organization. The board has the right to object if they can justify that. Is part of their work. The board members are also community members and they could, if they find something really “bad”, bring that to the discussion (speaking in their personal capacity) before it reaches consensus. I’m convinced that nobody has honestly interest to “delay” a proposal (either to reach consensus or to not-reach it, or to ratify it or to not-ratify it), so as sooner as all the points come to the table, much better.

We also shall remember that the board could be wrong and their decision about a ratification, can also be discussed by the organization membership, and that’s why, if this happens, the community which includes the membership, can always, have the same topic of a policy on the discussion table again.

I feel that the cases where the board stops a policy should be very very very strange, and this is why in the history of the 5 RIRs, I recall only a couple of cases. There is nothing wrong on that. There should be a good balance between community and organization protection.

Now, coming to the inter-RIR proposal under appeal (and the other 2), when each proposal has been presented and in the meetings were they have been discussed, I was the first one telliing 2 out of 3 of the proposals are non-reciprocal, and asked the authors and staff to verify with the other RIRs. I was even insulted because I was asking that. However finally, when that was done (after 2 meetings, unfortunatelly, so we lost a LOT of time), the conclusion was that I was completely right.

So this proves that the impact analysis of 2 proposals missed a key point, because a non-reciprocal policy means that the benefit of the inter-RIR transfers is lost. As said before an analysis impact is very helpful and we should always push for having it ASAP, but we should not take it “literally” or as a “must”. In fact in other RIRs, it is *clearly stated* in the analysis impact that it is the “staff” view and not neccesarily a “final true” or “mandatory recommendations” neither for or against the proposal.




El 7/4/21 21:48, "Noah" <noah at <mailto:noah at> > escribió:

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 <mailto:rpd at> > 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.

==> 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;

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......


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