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

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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Fri Apr 9 01:33:19 UTC 2021

Owen, unfortunately you are still missing the point and keep repeating
the something again and again in what look a hope to defend the suppose
right of the RIR to edit policies unilaterally ignoring the empowered
community if they wish so just because it is written in the bylaws.

Look, I never denied that as a corporation registered in Mauritius
AfriNic may do what whatever the bylaws allow them to do. However as a
For being and remaining to be a RIR goes much beyond any corporate
bylaws and stick to rules that go beyond a corporate bylaw. If they dare
to do that they will be usurping prerogatives that don't belong to them
as a RIR (look I said *as a RIR*), that must stick to principles that
are above the constitution of a corporation in Mauritius or any other
country RIRs are registered.

If that ever happens IT IS indeed that case for empowered community to
question the recognition of that corporation as a recognized RIR
everywhere is due. The corporation may continue existing as a registered
corporation in the country but other Internet related organizations may
stop to recognize it as a RIR if it goes against and ignore the
empowered community by doing such an act which they, are a RIR, don't
have the right to do.

Please try to understand the difference between the 2 things before you
reply saying I am wrong.


On 08/04/2021 20:40, Owen DeLong wrote:

> You’re still 100% wrong about that. AFRINIC is an organization that

> runs a registry. They are a corporation.

> The corporation MUST act according to its bylaws and the bylaws give

> the board authority as described.

> IF the board chooses to utilize that authority, there is no basis for

> the corporation to contravene it and the

> only recourse is for the community to reject the action at a later time.


> Doing so will not call into question the continued existence of

> AFRINIC, it will not be a crisis, it will

> likely be unpopular and will likely be controversial, but eventually,

> the controversy will resolve and the

> policy will either be ratified by the community or rejected by the

> community and we will return to some

> new form of normal.


> Owen



>> On Apr 7, 2021, at 11:01 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at

>> <mailto:fhfrediani at>> wrote:


>> On 07/04/2021 14:43, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>>> <clip>.


>>> 1. Board could ratify a proposal but if they don’t agree with it,

>>> considering the bylaws, they could also at the same time,

>>> approve a “contrary” policy, which will be in place immediately

>>> **until** it is endorsed by the community at the next meeting.

>>> If not endorsed, it will then be withdrawed.


>> That part of bylaws means nothing to PDWG. If they would ever do that

>> it would open a precedent that has the potential to question AfriNic

>> internationally to continuing to existing and be recognized as a RIR.

>> Bylaws is made by members-only and members-only are not allowed to

>> determine unilaterally what the policies will be unless that is give

>> to them by PDWG which has never happened.


>> Therefore that part of the bylaws should be rejected, dismissed and

>> ideally removed by the next General Assembly.


>> Fernando


>>> El 7/4/21 19:20, "Noah" <noah at <mailto:noah at>>

>>> escribió:

>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 7:48 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD

>>> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:


>>> I need to disagree with you here.


>>> Both proposals reached consensus. That’s a fact.


>>> No Jordi the*Resource Transfer Policy* with all its multiple

>>> versions, v.1 v.2, v.3 and I believe v.4 did not reach consensus due

>>> to lack of following the process.

>>> I know you are obsessed with wanting to see an IPv4 Inter-RIR

>>> transfer policy in place within our AFRINIC service region but that

>>> has to only happen through a clear PDP process and with all valid

>>> objections addressed including the serious financial implication

>>> that AFRINIC staff indicated when tasks by its resource members not

>>> withstanding staff impact analysis.


>>> One of them is pending on an appeal, so the board need to wait

>>> for that to be resolved.


>>> Yes and that is part of the process and the appeals state clearly

>>> why that specific proposal never achieved consensus and why it

>>> should be taken back to the WG for further discussion.


>>> 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.


>>> I would not support such a rushed move by the AFRINIC board. If a

>>> proposal has issues, it's the role of the WG to fine tune it until

>>> the WG agrees that yes, now we have a proposal that the co-chairs

>>> can send to the board for consideration like we have done with so

>>> many proposals in the past.

>>> Therefore, your piecemeal approach is very dangerous and we have

>>> taken some lessons from past mistakes as a WG that we can not afford

>>> to rush with piecemeal proposals just because folks can come back

>>> and fine tune the said policy. Why not the WG resolve all issues

>>> with the proposal before it can be sent for ratification.

>>> FWIW, Inter-RIR transfer proposals especially for our region ought

>>> to be treated with caution in light of all the fraud and we shall

>>> not blindly rush things here Jordi.

>>> Cheers,

>>> 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


>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


>> <>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list