[rpd] clarification on pending ratifications

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Jordi,
Peux-tu s'il te plait, arrêter de tourner en rond, sur le même sujet ?
Je pense que tu devrais faire confiance à la majorité. Te rends-tu comptes
que tu défends une personne contre plusieurs ? As-tu d'autres informations
issues de ton entretien privé avec le concerné, que nous n'avons pas? Si
Oui merci de la partager avec nous, dans le Cas contraire, merci de nous
laisser faire confiance, au STAFF d'AFRINIC et son Directeur, au BOARD et
son Chair ? Puis passons à autre chose. Personnellement, je crois plus au
Board et au Staff d'AFRINIC, jusqu'à preuve du contraire, je leur fais.

Merci d'accepter qu'on cloture cette affaire et qu'on passe à autre chose.

Cordialement.

Can you please stop turning around on the same topic?
I think you should trust the majority. Do you realize that you are
defending one person against many? Do you have any other information from
your private conversation with the person concerned, that we do not have? If
Yes, thank you for sharing it with us, if not, thank you for letting us
trust AFRINIC's STAFF and its Director, the BOARD and its Chair? Then let's
move forward. Personally, I believe more in the Board and Staff of AFRINIC,
until proven guilty, I trust them. Thank you for accepting that we close
this case and move forward.

Regards

Arnaud

Le jeu. 8 avr. 2021 à 09:46, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :


> (I’ve changed the subject to resolve your point C below)

>

>

>

> Hi Eddy,

>

>

>

> While I mostly agree with you and I will love to trust all the parties

> involved, we really need to understand what happened, not to find any

> guilty, but to restore the trust.

>

>

>

> If somebody said “we didn’t receive the email” and actually it was

> received, but for example considered incomplete, we need to know it.

> Otherwise, misunderstandings on the same issue may happen again in the

> future. I love to think that we all, like to learn from errors and

> correct/avoid them.

>

>

>

> Where I completely disagree with you is in the need for B.

>

>

>

> Following the PDP section 3.4.4 (approval):

>

> “The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the

> AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the

> Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include a report

> of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the Last Call. The

> draft policy shall be ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors.”

>

>

>

> There are two possibilities in this case:

>

>

>

>    1. If the email was sent, and we can see the headers from AK emails,

>    then there is nothing to do, just the Board MUST proceed with the

>    ratification or disclose to the PDWG the rationale for not doing so.

>    2. If for whatever reason we can’t get those headers and verify the

>    emails were sent, it is clear that the PDP doesn’t state that the same

>    chairs are the ones to ask for the ratification. In fact, for many reasons,

>    a ratification process can happen in the middle of co-chairs takeover, so

>    nothing strange. It can happen that the “outgoing” co-chairs have already

>    prepared the report and the “incoming” co-chairs just send it (which will

>    be the case if AK provides the documents), or it can happen that the

>    incoming co-chairs need to redo the job (review emails and videos on those

>    policy proposal discussions to prepare the report).

>

>

>

> However what it is clear is that consensus **was** already determined and

> there is only one pending issue in one of the proposals, regarding the

> appeal, which I’ve already asked to the board in a couple of previous

> emails:

>

>

>

> Will the board procceed with a ratification for a proposal that has a

> pending appeal resolution until the appeal process is completed, or will

> ratify and then revert the decision if the appeal succedds?

>

>

>

> Note that for in my personal view, even if this is not clearly stated in

> the PDP, the response is obvious: the board should wait for the appeal

> proccess to finish. However, it is important to know the board

> interpretation, in case this is a point at the PDP that requires a very

> simple 1-paragraph proposal to clarify it in the PDP, so we can come back

> in the future to the same question.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 8/4/21 11:14, "Eddy Kayihura" <eddy at afrinic.net> escribió:

>

>

>

> [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 :

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

> 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> 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> 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.

>

>

>

> è    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;

> 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

> 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

>

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

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20210408/43e954b0/attachment-0001.html>