Search RPD Archives
[rpd] missing emails from co-chairs to board
silber.mike at gmail.com
Tue Apr 13 19:58:36 UTC 2021
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 19:05, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 2021, at 22:57 , ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>
> Dear Eddy,
> 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
> reason public.
> 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.
> As one of the people who has been asking you to resend the document to the
> board and to the mailing list, I can assure you that my motivations are
> quite different.
> I would like to have a visible public record of what you sent so that the
> community may engage in a fruitful and productive discussion and
> investigation into what happened
> and work with the board on a way forward that is based in fact and record.
> 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.
> What could possibly be in the document that must be kept hidden from the
> public? It is supposed to be a transmission of the co-chairs judgment of
> the community decision taken publicly. While I understand that for
> convenience, it has been transmitted privately, this is merely tradition
> and convenience and there should not be anything about the document which
> requires secrecy or makes it inappropriate to provide a copy to the public
> upon request.
> 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
> Whether or not the board chair would make some excuse really should not be
> relevant to your decision to send the document to the community or not.
> Leave it to the community to address their concerns with the board chair
> and any excuses he may make. By denying the community access to the
> documentation, you are preventing the community from properly addressing
> whatever issues may exist.
> 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 would also be simple for you to simply forward the document with full
> headers to the community. It would take far less effort than what was spent
> concocting the above excuses for not doing so.
> It is our prayer that the working groups would have a path forward but we
> hope the right thing would be done.
> Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Make the document available to the
> working group so that we can have the facts in order to do the right thing.
> 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
>> 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
>> 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 proposal.
>> 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
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD