<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">Dear PDWG,</div><div dir="auto">Hope you are doing well!</div><div>Please see my comments below, inline...</div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">Le mardi 15 décembre 2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Responding below, in-line.<br>
<br>
<br>
El 15/12/20 15:46, "S. Moonesamy" <<a href="mailto:sm+af@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">sm+af@afrinic.net</a>> escribió:<br>
<br> >> [...]<br>
<br>
[Jordi] I'm very clear about how the RIRs were created. I've been there specially during the discussions/creation of LACNIC and AFRINIC, so in my own case, I'm not confused at all. What it is clear is that the only valid document related to the constitution of new RIRs is not the one you mention (which is more about global policies) and points to <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/<wbr>resources/pages/new-rirs-<wbr>criteria-2012-02-25-en</a>, and the relevant point is "3) Bottom-up self-governance structure for setting local policies". </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hi Jordi,</div><div>Thanks for your email with such a useful reference :-)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Note the "self-governance". If the Board is imposing "documents" (such as the ToR) that amend the PDP and aren't adopted by bottom-up consensus (by the PDP itself), then this is broken.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...i'm calling the AFRINIC's BoD to start to fix this :'-(</div><div> It's sad to see how this clear issue is managed :-/</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br> >> I assumed that there might be some problem when I read your complaint <br> >> about Section 5. I did not identify it on a first pass. I'll have <br> >> to analyze the text again again to be able to comment about the mistake.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] There are many, I've explained some of them many times. The major one, ToR is just trying to specify (again I'm sure in good faith), how to submit an appeal, but the PDP is self-contained. If the PDP is not clear, if there are several possible interpretations of that part of the text, it needs to be amended *following the PDP*. The ToR section 5 contradicts the PDP.<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>...i don't understand why we have to discuss </div><div dir="auto">on such a truth :-/</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
[Jordi] However, as I said many many many times, the ToR was *just an example* (the one that allowed to discover this problem). What is inconsistent is that the by-laws allow the Board to make new policies and the PDP doesn't allow that! I fully agree that the Board needs to protect the membership and *the resources* and I agree (with some corrections to minor typos) that the bylaws are just right (and difficult to change), and as a consequence the PDP must explicitly allow what the bylaws are allowing. The bylaws are governing the AFRINIC as an organization, but the bylaws *can't* and *must not* be on top of the overall community. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...Jordi, you have repeated this argumentation <br></div><div dir="auto">many times and i knew it's founded on the truth, <br></div><div dir="auto">but i prefered to stay aside. Now that i see so <br></div><div>many inconsistencies [0] with the implementation </div><div>of the PDP [1]...i think it's time to engage into the
</div><div>discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>Please PDWG Chairs, be kind to point me</div><div>to the appropriate thread, for me to add </div><div dir="auto">my comments... <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I'm sure we all agree on that. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>...not sure! definitely :'-(</div><div>If it was the case, i guess that the situation </div><div>would have been at least a bit different :-/</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So again, the right way to resolve that is to have the PDP *allowing that*.<br>
<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>...anyone is free to agree or disagree, but <br></div><div>i recall that there is a PDP [1] to guide our <br></div><div dir="auto">activities in this PDWG [2]</div><div><br></div><div>Why are we having this parallel thread for</div><div>the same purpose/DPP?</div><div><br></div><div>Where are the PDWG Chairs? i would have <br></div><div>expected them to reorient the discussions to <br></div><div>the appropriate thread...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...but i may be wrong though :'-(</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
[Jordi] Not correcting that is against ICP-2. Not correcting that means that the Board in the future, could write a ToR (call it whatever you want), to change something else in the PDP or the CPM and bypass the PDP bottom-up consensus based process.<br>
<br></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...a risk; which i imagine, no one here wants <br></div><div dir="auto">to take...see the proof [3].</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
> [...]<br>
<br> >> I don't remember who wrote the document.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] Some previous "Board" I guess, but it doesn't matter, it just need to be corrected once it has been discovered.<br>
<br>
> [...]<br>
<br> >> The document is scheduled for discussion around February 2021.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] We like it or not, the document is invalid. The document is a criminal attack to the PDP and the full </blockquote><div dir="auto">></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...added to this [4] thread, it seems as a coordinated one; <br></div><div dir="auto">directed to the PDWG </div><div dir="auto">:'-(</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">community and has *never* followed the PDP process, which has a single way to modify the PDP: the PDP itself. Again, I fully understand that nobody did that in bad faith, but nobody understood the consequences of bypassing the PDP.<br>
<br> >>>[Jordi] I fail to understand the relation of that email with this <br>
>>>topic. Just in case I can guess what you mean, have you read my <br> >>>response to the Legal Counsel? <br> >>><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/012123.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/2020/012123.html</a> The Board <br> >>>has many choices, for example, delay the ratification of the policy <br> >>>until the appeals are completed, withdraw the section 5 of the ToR <br> >>>(this will not affect any existing or future appeal), if they <br> >>>believe 5 is right, then send a policy proposal for that, etc., <br> >>>etc.. You can do this in many combinations, any of those will work.<br>
<br> >>I did not mean that Section 5 falls under "General business practices <br> >>..." It may be better to determine what is in scope, what is out of <br> >>scope for policy development, and the reasoning for that decision.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] For me is very clear: Anything related to the PDP itself and resource policies "bottom-up self-governance for setting local policies". There is not discussion on that. The community is able to decide up to what point they want to provide operational guidance to AFRINIC. I'm, in general, in favor of not going too far in the operational details within the policies. However sometimes you need to, because: a) if you don't go into the details, consensus can't be reached, b) if the RIR is not doing correctly the work, the only way the community can resolve that is by means of policy setting.<br></blockquote><div dir="auto">></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...it's also my understanding ;-)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Let's have an example: We discovered a couple of years ago, that the staff was not providing timely impact analysis. We asked the staff to voluntary adhere to some timeframes for that. They were not doing it, so we proposed a policy for fixing that. </blockquote><div dir="auto">></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...it had been storified at that time here: </div><div dir="auto"><<a href="https://slideshare.net/SylvainBAYAABOKA/dpp-afpub2019gen005draft01ppmafrinic31v20" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://slideshare.net/<wbr>SylvainBAYAABOKA/dpp-<wbr>afpub2019gen005draft01ppmafrin<wbr>ic31v20</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It seems that this policy proposal is no longer needed or at least could be relaxed, so we let the policy proposal to expire. However, if the staff doesn't improve the impact analysis timing, the community can, at any time, propose that policy again.<br><br></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...a volunteer can start here: AFPUB-2019-GEN-005-DRAFT01:</div><div dir="auto"><<font color="#1155cc"><a href="https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/<wbr>policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-<wbr>d1#proposal</a></font>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">and he is free to even use this (<em></em><span><span><em>CC BY-SA 4.0</em></span></span>):<br></div><div dir="auto"><<a href="https://www.slideshare.net/SylvainBAYAABOKA/dppafpub2019gen005draft01onlineppm20200916afrinic32v30" target="_blank">https://www.slideshare.net/<wbr>SylvainBAYAABOKA/<wbr>dppafpub2019gen005draft01onlin<wbr>eppm20200916afrinic32v30</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
The Board could setup an internal procedure for the timing of the impact analysis. However, if the community still believes that this is not good enough, the community can decide on a policy proposal for that. If the board doesn't ratify that policy, unless a very good justification for the non-ratification is provided (example, the community irrationally decides to provide 1 weeks for the impact analysis), the RIR is in breach of the ICP-2 and acting against the community.<br>
<br></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jordi, you are simply describing the PDP.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...but when you mentioned "[...] breach of the ICP-2 [...]", <br></div><div dir="auto">it started to think on a scenario, then please consider <br></div><div dir="auto">my questions:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">•~/</div><div dir="auto">•1| Imagine a scenario where:</div><div dir="auto">• the BoD adopts a DPP, </div><div dir="auto">• sends it to the PDWG, or not. </div><div dir="auto">• The PDWG rejects it, but </div><div dir="auto">• the BoD ratifies it. </div><div dir="auto">• What'll happen? </div><div dir="auto">•2| Is there a mean to address the issue?</div><div dir="auto">•3| Which procedure can be used to resolve it? </div><div dir="auto">•4| If there is not, then, what's the appropriate </div><div dir="auto">way to fix it?</div><div dir="auto">•5| ...</div><div dir="auto">•~\</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
I hope you agree on all this rational.<br><br>
>>> [...]<br>
<br>
At 01:40 AM 15-12-2020, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br> >>>[Jordi] Do you mean that the chairs haven't requested the Board to <br> >>>ratify the policies?<br>
<br> >>Yes.<br>
<br> >>>Is that when the chairs declared consensus, after the last call, <br> >>>they have sent it to the board, I guess via the policy officer, etc. <br> >>>Can you clarify if that didn't happen? Is this a chairs lack of <br>
>>>action or staff mistake or delay in some way?<br>
<br> >>The Board did not receive any email requesting it to ratify a policy <br> >>proposal. I don't know what could have happened.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] This is a big issue: either the chairs are not doing the complete work, or nobody explained them and they missed it, but somehow, the staff responsibility is to tell them: "after you've declared consensus - which they did according the list archive, etc. - you need to tell the board". My guess is that they told the staff, because that actually meant the CEO to ask the Legal Counsel about that, etc., so maybe there is some "incomplete" internal process between the staff and the board?<br> <br></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...please, how can we correct this?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Do you think that it can be fixed by </div><div dir="auto">writing down & publishing the internal </div><div dir="auto">procedure? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
[Jordi] However, that doesn't excuse the Board - clearly the Board members, at least some of them, are in the RPD list, so they also followed the discussions and *must have noticed* that policies that reached consensus and are to be ratified by them, didn't completed all the steps of that "internal" process.<br>
<br></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...having an other PDWG Liaison, coming </div><div dir="auto">from the BoD, could help? :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks,</div><div dir="auto">__</div><div dir="auto">[0]: see also <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/010253.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/2019/010253.html</a><wbr>></div><div dir="auto">[1]: <<a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/<wbr>manual#PDP</a>></div><div dir="auto">[2]: <<span style="font-family:sans-serif"><a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDWG" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/<wbr>manual#PDWG</a></span>></div><div dir="auto">[3]: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/thread.html#12121" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/2020/thread.<wbr>html#12121</a>></div><div dir="auto">[4]: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/012121.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/2020/012121.html</a><wbr>></div><div dir="auto"><br style="font-family:sans-serif"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Shalom, <br></div><div>--sb.</div><div><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Regards,<br>
S. Moonesamy<br>
<br>
Board Chair, AFRINIC <br><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>[...] </blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div>
</div>
<br><br>-- <br>Best Regards ! <br>baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | <<a href="https://www.cmnog.cm">https://www.cmnog.cm</a>> | <br><<a href="https://survey.cmnog.cm">https://survey.cmnog.cm</a>><br>Subscribe to Mailing List : <<a href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/">https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/</a>><br>__<br>#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«*Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec <br>vous tous! #Amen!*»<br>#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement<br>«*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire <br>après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2)<br><br><br><br>