[rpd] missing emails from co-chairs to board

[Mike Silber]

Owen +1

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>

> wrote:

>

> 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

> you.

>

> 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

> time.*

>

>

> 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.

>

> Owen

>

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

> 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

>> empty-handed.

>>

>> 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.

>>

>> Owen

>>

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>> Cordialement,

>>

>> 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

>> better.

>>

>> 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.

>>

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 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;

>>  https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3#impact

>>

>>

>> 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......

>>

>> Noah

>>

>>

>>

>> **********************************************

>> IPv4 is over

>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>> http://www.theipv6company.com

>> 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

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>

> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin

> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal

> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal

> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210413/eaae6213/attachment-0001.html>