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

[Daniel Yakmut]

Thanks Eddy, I thought we had derailed. You summation is good and I 
agree that we should come back to the meat of the matter.


Simply

Daniel


On 08/04/2021 10:05 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

>

> CEO AFRINIC

>

> #######

>

> 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

>

> CEO AFRINIC

>

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

> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 April 2021 12:28

> *To:* rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *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 neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> 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 afrinic.net <mailto: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.

>

>     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; 

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3#impact 

> <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

>

>

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

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com <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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210408/664fabb6/attachment-0001.html>