[Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Noah]

https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee?lang=en#appeals

On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, 22:46 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> On Aug 1, 2021, at 12:21 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

>

>

>

> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, 20:47 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> On Aug 1, 2021, at 06:06 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

>>

>>

>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, 15:43 Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss, <

>> community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Let those who wish to run the risks of staying with AfriNIC through this

>>> situation do so

>>>

>> - let those who choose not to accept the risk profile transfer out -

>>> problem solved.

>>>

>>

>> https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/inbound-transfer-policy

>>

>> Noah

>> PS: confusion of the highest order.

>>

>>

>> Who is confused, Noah?

>>

>

> Andrew who penned down that failed Inbound Transfer Policy Proposal in

> 2016 and today was suggesting an Outbound transfer policy to move IPv4

> space out of AFRINIC service region.  There is some confusion there.

>

>

> I don’t think he’s confused, I think you fail to recognize a: the context

> in which he penned that 2016 proposal and b: the ways in which

> circumstances have changed today.

>


Circumstances require the AFRINIC service region to be more conservative.
If anything, Andrew should bring back his proposal for Inbound Transfers.

In your case, you want to force through a resource transfer policy so that
your employer Larus can transfer resources out.  *#dangayatoto *




> Personally, I think the simpler and more expedient thing would be for the

>> board to merely ratify

>> the existing consensus RTP,

>>

>

> Says Owen who recently on *Thu Jul 29 01:22:17 UTC 2021* cautioned the

> same AFRINIC board from ratifying a proposal under some appeal.

>

>

> Yes… Difference is that there’s arguably no valid appeal standing against

> RTP.

>

> Co-chairs declared consensus.

>


In an erroneous manner.



> Appeal submitted

>


The submitted appeals against that proposal remain open pending hearing by
an AC review.

https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee?lang=en#appeals

*1st pending appeal against DPP *AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04
https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/appeal-consensus-ressource-transfer-policy-updated-20102020.pdf

*2nd pending appeal against DPP *AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04
https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/afrinic-appeal-resource-transfer-policy.pdf




> Co-chairs returned proposal to list for further community input.

>


The PDP after the last call, requires disputed proposals to be sent back to
the list for further discussions until the next PPM.  There was no
emergency and the proposal had so many valid objections that remain
unaddressed today.

Consensus was confirmed by the community and again confirmed by co-chairs.

>


Which community?  or mean your echo-chamber.



> Thus this consensus declaration was not the subject of the previous appeal.

>


I refer you to the above links that are pending appeals and can also see

https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee?lang=en#appeals



> Proposal submitted to board fro ratification after second consensus call.

>


You can twist it however you like but as long as the PDWG has disputed the
ex Co-chairs decision as per the PDP process and the very proposal remains
with valid objections yet to be addressed, the resource transfer proposal
never reached consensus and is under appeals.



>

>

>

> I refer you to the archives  *https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013651.html

> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013651.html>*

>

> *Jordi* >* I’ve submitted several appeals, so I know very well that only

> patience is needed.*

> *Owen*: I would think you, of all people, would understand the need for

> the board to at least acknowledge the appeal and provide some assurance

> that it will not ratify a policy that should be under appeal.

>

> *Jordi* >* The Board will not be able to ratify a policy under appeal

> until the appeal is resolved. That’s it.*

> *Owen*: Normally, I would agree with you. However, in the face of recent

> events, I am unwilling to place so much faith in

> this current board.

>

> Is it safe to say that you Owen is equally confused.

>

>

> Nope… But apparently I was right about you being confused. You seem to

> fail to grasp the difference in circumstance for the two policies you

> mention above.

>


You really like to twist things around to suit your liking. You are calling
for the *ratification* of a resource transfer proposal which is under two
pending appeals and at the same time you are calling for the
*non-ratification* of an RPKI AS0 proposal which is under some appeal.



>

> but Andrew’s suggestion could also mitigate risks for members.

>>

>

> It remains Andrew's personal opinion and not the consensus of 75% of the

> membership base.

>

>

> How did you measure this 75%’s opinions? Please do tell.

>


If you didn't get it,... it's immaterial.

Cheers,
Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20210801/35e696d2/attachment-0001.html>