[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Mon Mar 27 13:43:20 UTC 2017

Hello Andrew,

I see more Conflict Of Interests with members of board (who are supposed to
ratify  adopted policy proposals) authoring  policy proposals and having
active discussion in PDP, than  PDWG co-chairs  editing proposal based on
community  consensus.

Thanks.

2017-03-26 15:54 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>:

> Honest, firstly, I should have said PDP not Bylaws (though technically the
> bylaws create the PDP and therefore the mandate comes indirectly from the
> bylaws, but be that as it may, let us concentrate on the PDP where the
> mandate is actually contained)
>
>
>
> Let me quote from the PDWG:
>
>
>
> The PDWG has two chairs *who are responsible for carrying the
> administrative functions of the group*. They are chosen by the community
> during public policy meetings and serve staggered two year terms.
>
>
>
> *Roles and Responsibilities of the PDWG Chairs*
>
>    - Determining whether there is consensus during open policy
>    discussions.
>    - Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings.
>    - Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call).
>    - Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public
>    policy meetings to the Board of Directors.
>
>
>
>
>
> Those are the roles and responsibilities of the co-chair – anything
> further is stepping beyond granted mandate.  Editing and authoring creates
> conflict of interest.  If you wish to change the process to allow for
> editing and authoring and ignore that conflict of interest – feel free to
> propose an amendment to the PDP – but as it stands – that is not within
> their mandate.  Editing and authoring policy is NOT an administrative
> function of the PDWG.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Sunday, 26 March 2017 at 17:40
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc: *rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>
>
> Please see my comments inline
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-03-26 13:01 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> >:
>
> The co-chairs cannot act as editors for a proposal that they have to
> adjudicate consensus on.
>
>
>
> That cannot happen - it is beyond their mandate granted by the bylaws and
> it creates a direct conflict of interest situation, which is something we
> have worked hard to address at all levels within AfriNIC.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Could you please substantiate this claim in the Bylaw and/or PDP
> document?*
>
>
>
> Furthermore, any individual is free to propose another policy if they feel
> that something on the table does not meet their needs.
>
>
>
> *If they feel something does not meet their needs, why can they not
> contribute to the improvement of the policy on the table? Please I appeal
> to everyone's sense of reason: what good does it do to have two, three,
> four and so on proposals addressing the same exact issue? It will scatter
> efforts of the members but also ,dare I say, introduce some sort of
> competition aspect to our policy development.*
>
>
>
> *I will say it again, I strongly believe that there should be only one
> policy proposal addressing a specific issue which should be on rpd at a
> given time. It will allow community to focus , give meaningful
> contributions and accelerate the discussion phase*
>
>
>
> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 26, 2017 2:45:44 PM
> *To:* Mark Elkins
> *Cc:* rpd
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> From my point of view, I don’t see anything sad about it. I see progress
> and an opportunity to improve our PDP process.
>
>
>
> The Co-Chairs have done a good job of presenting the main points of the
> discussions we had. Why not contribute or comment on that as requested?
>
>
>
> One lesson I learned from this is that we should try not to have 2
> proposals dealing with the same issue in the PDP. What we should do is work
> as a community to improve or reject proposals that are submitted.
>
>
>
> Another proposal from you does not make sense to me especially as your
> team refused to cooperate with the Co-chairs. As far as I understand,
> because you withdrew your policy, softlanding-bis is currently the policy
> under consideration.
>
>
>
> We can react to the feedback at https://goo.gl/AWCCWd and update the
> policy. If there are no constraints, we could even do this without the
> authors, have the Co-chairs act as editors and make this a real community
> process.
>
>
>
>
>
> What we must not do is waste even more of everyone's time and Co-chairs
> effort in getting us to this point.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
> Honest Ornella GANKPA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2017-03-24 21:46 GMT+01:00 Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>:
>
> That's a bit sad.
>
> I've been involved in a number of proposals, both some successful (IPv6
> /48, AnyCast) and some not (Inter-regional Transfer - which I withdrew). I
> believe that there is a need to re-address some parts of the Soft Landing
> Proposal and I'm thick-skinned enough to give this a try.
>
> I believe that proposals since the Soft landing proposal was first
> proposed (and that wasn't a quick task) along with what has been learned by
> watching other regions and by some of our own proposals will allow our
> community to better shape the Soft Landing Proposal to something that will
> allow some limited but crucial IPv4 resources to last a fare bit longer
> into the future for new entrants into this world of Internet Addresses.
>
>
>
> On 24/03/2017 22:08, Arsène Tungali wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Though we still have 3 days to go (out of the 7 suggested by the Co-chairs
> to hear from the community on their suggestion),
>
>
> As a newbie in the PDP process, I have the impression that we (community)
> will not be able to move ahead with this work as per the wonderful
> suggestion by co-chairs. If this wonderful idea was supported by the
> community, there should have been someone to take the lead (already).
>
> In my opinion, since no one from the community has stepped in to work on a
> merged policy, I would suggest co-chairs to just leave this and declare it
> a dead proposal. There is no interest in working on a merged proposal given
> that original authors were not able to come together and produce something
> as we all agreed in Mauritius. This is frustrating and I hope we take
> lessons from this experience for the future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arsene
>
>
> ------------------------
> **Arsène Tungali**
>
> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
> <http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
> <http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
> Tel: +243 993810967 <+243%20993%20810%20967>
>
> GPG: 523644A0
>
> *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
>
> 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
> (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-Ambassadors>
> & Mexico
> <http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
> - AFRISIG 2016 <http://afrisig.org/afrisig-2016/class-of-2016/> - Blogger
> <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow (Los Angeles
> <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en> & Marrakech
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/marrakech55-attendees-2016-03-14-en>
> ). AFRINIC Fellow (Mauritius
> <http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/1907-afrinic-25-fellowship-winners>
> )* - *IGFSA Member <http://www.igfsa.org/> - Internet Governance -
> Internet Freedom.
>
> Check the 2016 State of Internet Freedom in DRC report
> <http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=234>
>
>
>
> 2017-03-22 22:09 GMT+02:00 ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>:
>
>
>
> Dear Community
>
> We thank the co-chairs for the efforts put in managing the soft landing
> update’s process incepted by the 2 policy proposals. We also thank the
> community for the intensive discussions and contributions.
>
> We have contributed to the post-Mauritius initiative from the co-chairs on
> this update to the softlanding and remain available for any further actions
> required from us.
>
> We still believe that amending certain aspects of the current  soft
> landing policy adopted in 2011, is  a good thing to do, despite the time
> wasted and  the fact that  AFRINIC  v4 pool showing 1.077 /8 available,
> which means the soft landing may be triggered anytime soon.
>
> We hope that the community has learnt a lot from this process and consider
> the main lesson here to be, the fundamental principle of
> policies/standards' development, which is that when a proposal is on the
> table to address an issue and has been accepted for discussion, it becomes
> community's document, aiming to be improved by the community up to
> adoption, rejection or withdrawal.
>
> Thanks
>
> Softlanding-bis Co-authors
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 2017, at 10:24 PM, SamiSalih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear AfriNIC Community,
> > Greetings from the PDWG Co-chairs,
> >
> > Many of you may have followed the proceedings of the two conflicting
> proposals addressing IPv4 exhaustion.
> >
> > At the last meeting in Mauritius, authors of both IPv4 run-out
> management proposals agreed to consider working together to develop an
> improved proposal.
> > We regret to inform you that despite several efforts, both groups of
> authors were unable to collaborate towards a joint solution.
> >
> > As that process is deadlocked, the co-chairs have put together some of
> the major points in discussions raised over multiple meetings and mailing
> list discussions. Because the community has made many valid observations on
> improvements that could be made to the status quo, we hereby suggest that
> these be assessed by the community with a view to presenting a proposal
> that better manages the exhaustion of IPv4 resources.
> >
> > Some examples of recommended improvements include consideration for new
> entrants, IPv6 transition provisions, and repurposing of reserves for the
> "unforeseen".
> >
> > To avoid entering a loop similar to what we recently encountered, there
> is a need to concentrate our efforts on a joint solution. Can we discuss
> and let the co-chairs assist with the draft of a proposal that contains
> only areas that have rough consensus?
> >
> > If there are areas on which consensus cannot be reasonably reached,
> those can be left out of the policy update proposal. Although the resulting
> proposal may be treated under the emergency provisions of the PDP due to
> time sensitivity of the subject matter, the ideal situation would be for
> the draft update to be received before the next PPM.
> >
> > Although the PDP does not expressly require the above, we trust that all
> community members will be reasonable and work together constructively
> rather than seek to frustrate any efforts that do not align with their
> viewpoints.
> >
> > The extracts from discussions till date are at https://goo.gl/AWCCWd
> and we would like to receive feedback and suggestions from the community
> > over the next 7 days.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > AfiNIC PDP Co-chairs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
> > Sudan University of Science and Technology
> > Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
> > email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
> > Mob: +249122045707
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> RPD mailing list
>
> RPD at afrinic.net
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>
> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590 <+27%2012%20807%200590>  Cell: +27.826010496 <+27%2082%20601%200496>
>
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
--Abel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170327/275d945e/attachment-0001.html>