<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Thanks Noah, very well said.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>The fact that somebody that is not a co-author, and I recall was even not supporting the proposal (I may be wrong here in my recalling), is having the same view, is a very interesting point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>However, as said before this is a discussion that falls much beyond than *<b>this specific proposal</b>*.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If the board or committees (whatever committee), which have something to say related to the PDP (appeals, nominations, etc.), believe that they should be able to change what the PDP is stating, this means restricting the PDP and the rights of the community. This *<b>must not be decided</b>* by a committee, but the PDP itself via a policy proposal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Otherwise that is next? May be “the candidates to co-chairs shall bring a pink tie in the presentation intro” or “the appeal can’t be submitted by the author(s), it must be another member of the community”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 8/5/20 15:42, "Noah" <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> escribió:</p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>On Fri, 8 May 2020, 11:13 ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE, <</span><a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US>oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</span></a><span lang=EN-US>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>As far as we Co-chairs are concerned the ruling of the appeal committe means that our decision was upheld, <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Am not sure there was a ruling if the appeal committee indicated that the said appeal didnt meet the apparent requirements of three WG supporters even though there is WG support for the proposal itself archived. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Even the so called support is subject to interpretations and clarification has been sought from the appeals committee as to what they mean after all their previous appeals ruling years ago didnt spell out the 3 supporters requirement which was the basis of the recent dramatic ruling by AC.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>meaning the policy proposal goes back to the discussion stage. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Not so fast. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>IMHO, I am still waiting for clarification from the appeals committee in relationship to their contradictions of how they handled the previous appeals vs this particular case. [1] <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>Noah<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US>[1] If appeals committee doesnt clarify their ruling then th</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>e issue needs to be escalated beyond the PDWG and appeals committee itself since the working group is not satisfied with the co-chairs and appeals committees decisions.</span><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>