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

[rpd] status of appeals submitted last January

Thu Apr 21 17:23:16 UTC 2022

Hi Sylvain,


See below in-line.








El 21/4/22, 19:10, "Sylvain Baya" <abscoco at> escribió:


Dear PDWG,


Hope this email finds you in good health!

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le jeudi 21 avril 2022, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at> a écrit :

Hi Chair,

(copied my original email so the thread can be properly followed)

Tks for your quick response. However ...

Is not only an AC question. If they take a decision on the appeals (at least the one on the proposal that expires mid-may) in the next few days, will the Board be able to meet to ratify that proposal (in case the appeal fails)?


Hi Jordi,


You are doing a good follow-up, brother. 

Thanks for you email.



If the AC decision will be too late for the Board to ratify the policy proposal before expires, we must know it *in advance* as we must take decisions



How the PDWG could know it in advance? Or any one :-/

...and which decisions the PDWG must take?


Please clarify, brother.


[Jordi] Yes, we can know in advance. The AC can say when they have their next meeting to resolve it. Then the Board can say if they can have a meeting to ratify it. Planning is easy when there is willingness to do so.



 before the timings will disallow taking actions before the next PPM (for example, if the option to publish a new version without changes is acceptable 



OK! but you don't need a permission to do exactly this :-/


[Jordi] I don’t think so. If I publish a new version, the staff/co-chairs can interpret that as I’m resigning from the actual consensus. I shall only publish a new version if they agree that this is the way to go in case the Board can’t ratify it once expired … It all depends in lots of timing and CPM interpretation details, and we as a WG, can only know if they (AC, board, staff, co-chairs), speak-up.


Actually, all this happened because the process was paused, against the CPM, when the appeal was first submitted. The CPM doesn’t say anything about “when there is an appeal the last-call can’t be started”. I warned about it, asked several times in the list why it was done this “pause”, and never got a response. It is a very easy way to enter into a never ending dead-end.


When there is an appeal, the only think can’t happen is a “forceable ratification+implementation” until the appeal is completed. That’s why one of my suggestions to resolve this, is for the Board to actually ratify it with a kind of “waiver” statement that indicates “in case of the AC failing against the consensus decision, the ratification will be invalidated”.



- which may imply the agreement of the PDWG chairs - we can't miss also the relevant deadline before the PPM).



Jordi, i understand the timing problem you are 

raising; but what can be done, right now?


[Jordi] I’ve proposed several solutions. Without responses from all the involved parties, we can’t decide what is feasible and what not.



So, we definitively need a *very urgent* response from all the involved parties:
- AC
- Board
- PDWG chairs



...i expect no addition from their comments. You 

know the truth and you know how to fix the issue 

you discovered...why do you want to set a preceding?



- Staff (on the interpretation of the CPM timings on this case)


An "interpretation" for what purpose?


The running version (v1.6) of the CPM is clearly 

lacking a policy to properly handle the issue you actually described very precisely. There we are... 

and it's fine that we have had the opportunity to finally discover it. Sure, we are not perfect!


Time to fix, then?


...a Draft Policy Proposal (DPP) content could be something like the following text:



Notwithstanding the PDP and the normal lifecycle of a DPP, when the PDWG's Appeal Committee confirms that a DPP is under an appeal; the counter measuring the lifecycle of that DPP is automatically stopped. Its counter is automatically released when the PDWG's AC publishes a final determination about that appeal.



...under CC0!







El 21/4/22, 12:39, "chair at" <chair at> escribió:

    Dear Mr Palet,

    The Board of Directors met yesterday and appointed a Policy 
    Development Appeal Committee.

    Updates to the web page is a day to day matter.

    I'll defer to the Policy Development Appeal Committee on the other 
    questions as those questions may fall under its purview.

    S. Moonesamy

    Board Chair, AFRINIC


Best Regards !
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <>
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE|#‎Romains15:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU de ‪#‎Paix soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen!»
‪#‎MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)

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...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list