Search RPD Archives
[rpd] missing emails from co-chairs to board
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Apr 13 09:37:31 UTC 2021
The staff said that they never got anything, but they send the chairs examples of previous co-chairs to facilitate the work. The staff didn’t recognize that they exchanged mails on those documents with the chairs. The PDFs sent by AK probe otherwise. One of the PDFs, dated on 25th November 2020, shows that it was sent to the board.
I agree that having the headers, documents, and even better original emails forwarded to the list, will be clearer, but I fail to see why anyone could think that the chairs have manipulated those PDFs to lie to the community.
On the other way around, it is clear that there are misinterpretations of the PDP and AC ToR being done every other week by the board. See below the PD if you haven’t observed this before.
It is clear that the board, following the legal counsel, doesn’t want to ratify at least one of the policies. This is the wrong way to approach to this. If they really believe the policy is wrong, they could have done many things, including an appeal, or warning about that before the consensus was declared, etc., etc. They could even decide not to ratify it and return it to the PDWG.
PD: Look once more the sample of missinterpreation being done by the Board on the PDP, section 3.5 Conflict resolution.
For Appeals (3.5.1), the text say that must be supported by 3 persons from the PDWG. The Board, when writing the ToR, interpreted “3 other persons”.
However, for Recalls (3.5.3), text say “5 *other* persons”. This is very clear, however the board also read an *inexistent* “OTHER” in the PDP and based on that, an appeal was rejected the previous year.
The board prerrogatives policy makes clear from the community perspective something that *it is clear already* in the bylaws: The board can’t modify the PDP, unless “emergency”, but in those cases, they need to follow the PDP to get the community endorsment. Not doing so *it is a manipulacion of the process* and of course, the board is not interested, unfortunately, in ratifying a proposal that enforces the board following the PDP in a more clear way, because they continuously are bending it every other week. This is apart from the fact that the bylaws only “allow” the board to change the CPM in aspects related to the resources, NOT the PDP. The board prerrogatives *allow them to do so*. The board is reading this policy as “against” them, while in fact is protecting them *if they follow the rules* (set by the community and the bylaws!!!).
This only shows, that there is interest in bending the rules, and that either the legal counsel or the board have “interpretation problems” even on something that is protecting them and giving them, clearly, additional atributions in emergency situations.
And if you look at the recent situation with the chairs recall, if the board had ratified this policy, all this mess for the selection could have been done *much faster* because the board could have implemented a policy (in consultancy with the community) to select chairs in case of recall. That policy will have to be approved in the next PPM, but the elected chairs will be valid to complete the terms set in that policy even if the community doesn’t endorse the policy. We could have saved *everyone* many discussions and confrontations and of course precious time.
El 13/4/21 10:57, "Mike Silber" <silber.mike at gmail.com> escribió:
I think it is time to stop flogging this dead horse.
AK has provided some evidence (albeit not verifiable, for whatever reason he may have - it is unclear why he won’t share the actual mails and his explanation below does not hold water to me).
However, even the imperfect evidence shared shows communication with the staff liaison and not the board.
It appears the co-chairs did not fulfil their obligation to send the policy to the board. At best they seem to have expected that the liaison would send it on their behalf. However there is no clear request to do so and even if there was such a clear request, my understanding is that would be outside the CPM which requires the chair/s to send the recommendation.
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. (my emphasis)
As such, I think we have to accept that we will not get further clarity and we need to move on, as suggested by the CEO.
Further comments in-line below.
On 13 Apr 2021, at 09:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
El 13/4/21 8:06, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> escribió:
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 reason public.
This will be appreciated
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.
As above, the CPM which requires the chair/s to send the recommendation. Suggesting that it is the role of the liaison is a clear misunderstanding of the CPM.
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.
It is this working group that develops policy. Why should we be excluded from knowing how it is being processed and that our selected chair/s are fulfilling their obligations under the CPM?
We believe that the document is in the hands of AFRINIC staff.
Maybe it is - but it is the role of the chair/s to submit the policy and report to the board.
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.
@Abdulkarim, I think it is time to stop with personal attacks on the chair and the policy liaison or your unfounded conspiracy theories. No one is asking you to resend the document (as you are no longer the chair, it would be moot). Instead the WG has asked you to provide confirmation that you complied with section 3.4.4 of the CPM. So far you have failed and/or refused to do so and it is in fact you who are making excuses and wasting 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.
As above, it is the role of the chair/s under 3.4.4 of the CPM to recommend the draft policy to the board and to transmit the report. it is irregular to expect AfriNIC staff to do this. As you are no longer the chair, this would only be valid if sent by you prior to your recall.
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD