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

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Apr 13 16:50:27 UTC 2021

> On Apr 8, 2021, at 23:43 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at> wrote:


> I think the base of the problem is understanding that registry (AFRINIC organization) and community (PDWG) are different things and that the community *choose* that the registry is the organization offering the support to the community.

Well… Yes and no…

Depends on how you define community, I suppose.

The reality is that those who run routers can choose to believe any entity they want with respect to who has authority to announce a given prefix to them and to what extent they are willing to renounce anything they hear to others.

So if you define the “community” as “those who run routers”, then sure.

If you define the community as “anyone with an email address”, then the reality is that most of the community has very little or no say in selecting a registry.

If those who run routers want to select a new registry or registry system, then there would need to be strong consensus around the desire to make the change and the selection of a new registry or registry system. Absent that, any such change would lead to fragmentation, duplication, and extreme dysfunction which would be so disruptive that we would likely see a second round of new registry system where the community would have no choice — namely governments would turn over numbering authority for the internet to the ITU by fiat.

> The community is the one that has the power on the policy development. The registry *must* follow the community wishes, but at the same time it must protect the membership.

Within limits, this is true. However, there are limits to the community’s power over the registry and those limits are spelled out in each RIR’s bylaws.

> However, if the community decides that the organization is not being useful anymore or acting against the community, it can decide to find and alternative organization.

Sure… sort-of… See above.

> Yes, it will be a very bad situation, and not an easy path, but a possible one.

Given the difficulty this community has in coming to consensus on how to come to consensus, I think your idea of “possible” is rather optimistic, but yes, if the community could find consensus around creating an alternative registry and all of the significant ISPs would choose to follow said new registry as authoritative, such might be possible.

> To avoid that, it is better that the community provides explicit permission to AFRINIC for certain aspects that today are miswritten in the bylaws and not made explicit in the PDP.

I don’t agree that they are miswritten in the bylaws. They are necessary provisions for the organization to function as a legal structure.

> For example, the bylaws talk about urgent policies for resources, but the PDP don’t explicitly say that, so the bylaws attributed to the organization something that the community MUST authorize.

Yes, it would be good if the PDP were updated to include this authority as well so that there is no question that it exists. Nonetheless, it does exist within the organization whether the community adds it to the PDP or not.

> I also agree that the organization has legal power for things that a non-legal organization such the community could not resolve, and I think is good that the community explicitly provides the organization certain additional attributions.

Yes, that would help clarify the situation and make it easier for the complex realities of how things actually work to be better understood.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list