Search RPD Archives
[rpd] missing emails from co-chairs to board
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
Tue Apr 13 05:57:11 UTC 2021
I also trust you that you that you didn't receive the email as well,
something might have gone wrong somewhere however, since that has been
established we now need to do just the needful. Personally, I all my
interactions with you I have never had any reason to ever doubt your
sincerity and honesty. I know it's a a tough job for tough people like
We have refused to forward or re- forward the email to the mailing list or
board's mailing list for a reasons and we think we need to make this
Just before sending the document to the board then, we sent the same
document to the Madhvi who is an AFRINIC staff and the Policy Liaison
Officer. In fact as you can see from the email exchange she acknowledged
that the document was ready to be sent to the board after which we made no
changes to the content of the document. She has never claimed the document
was not received by her so we are sure she has it Therefore she can process
internally. We are sure she has the final version and in the best
position to just process it internally. We only sent it as two documents
and nothing was changed in the content. This way we can preserve the date
and content of the document.
We believe the drive to get us to resend it again by some people is an
attempt to avoid the document being processd while trying to waste some
more precious time.
Something of this nature, was already suggested in your email as you asked
us to send it for just public knowledge. The document via not for public
knowledge, it a document that the board should process as appropriate. We
believe that the document is in the hands of AFRINIC staff. In Fact the
PDWG Secretariat has shared some information not requested in recent days
but I wonder why they can't also share this with the board.
Again, going by the illogical actions of the board chair in recent times ,
we are certain that if we resend the document at this time he would come
back with an obvious excuse. *If this is not going to be the case, then the
board chair should come out clearly on this, rather than waste our time.*
Therefore, if we are all sincere and looking for a genuine way forward.
This is a very simple case, AFRINIC staff who is also the PDWG Secretariat
at the moment has the document. She can just process it internally as she
has always had our permission to do this.
It is our prayer that the working groups would have a path forward but we
hope the right thing would be done.
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, 00:08 Owen DeLong via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2021, at 02:05 , Eddy Kayihura <eddy at afrinic.net> 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
> 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;
> Respectfully, I don’t agree with this. If it is shown that the co-chairs
> took an action prior to their recall, then the board
> should proceed as if the documents had been received at that time and
> should act on them accordingly. There is no basis
> for allowing the failure to receive the email to derail the process and
> require that it be sent back as a result.
> C) We go back to discussing the issue at hand as indicated by the
> subject of this thread.
> I think the group is capable of discussing more than one topic. at a time.
> It would be helpful, however, if the
> subject line were changed so as to put different topics in different
> threads. I have taken the liberty of doing
> that with this reply.
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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;
> 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......
> 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 afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD