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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Something that I disagree with you is the point regarding the ratification of the inter-RIR proposal.

 

It can’t be done until the appeal is processed. It doesn’t matter if the AC is disbanded at the time being, the appeal still needs to be resolved.

 

In a previous email I’ve already asked the board to clarify that, not just for this proposal, in general, if there is a proposal declared having consensus by the chairs and asked for the ratification, but it is under appeal, will the board ratify it or wait for the resolution of the appeal?

 

We need to understand what is their view on this, in case we need to clarify that in the PDP.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 7/4/21 23:23, "Paschal Ochang" <pascosoft at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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.



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/ec3e6424/attachment-0001.html>