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

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

Mark Elkins mje at
Thu Apr 8 09:37:13 UTC 2021

Thank you Eddy.

I agree with you.

On 4/8/21 11:05 AM, Eddy Kayihura wrote:


> [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.


> Regards,


> 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 :


> 1. Est-ce que les Co-chairs précédents peuvent renvoyer les rapports

> en questions sur la liste RPD and qu’ils deviennent public ?

> 2. Des que les nouveaux Co-chairs seront en position, le PDWG pourra

> s’accorder sur la procédure a suivre avec ces documents ;

> 3. Nous continuons a discuter sur le sujet qui est bien référencé

> dans le titre de l’email.


> Cordialement,


> Eddy Kayihura




> *From:*JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at>

> *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.


> Regards,


> Jordi


> @jordipalet


> 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.


> èI 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......


> Noah



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

> 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.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at       Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list