[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Wed Jul 19 20:33:05 UTC 2017

> 
> I have provided the substantive grounds on which I oppose the policy. I have other responsibilities and the creation of such a policy simply isn’t a sufficient priority for me to engage in the exercise you request.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> If  contributing to the improvement of this policy proposal (being discussed since may 2016) is not a sufficient priority for you, do not destroy what others have taken to build.

So you’re saying that it is not legitimate for someone to oppose a policy they feel is unnecessary if they are unwilling to rewrite it on behalf of the authors?

This is absurd.

The policy proposed by the authors is flawed in critical ways and would be harmful to everyone it purports to serve.

> There is a full consensus on the list on the principle of review (including yourself). 

Yes.

> What Is then expected from all participants in the PDP is to contribute to improve the proposal on the table to make it a consensual document. 

Not necessarily. This may be your expectation, but it is not an expectation shared by everyone.

> Not doing so and repeating what others have said add no value. 

I don’t believe I’ve been simply repeating what others have said. In response to repeated dismissal of my concerns, I have repeated what I have said (though not as often as my concerns have been dismissed). I would argue that the posts which add no value are those which insist on ignoring or dismissing the substantive challenges and objections to the proposed policy.

Owen

> 
> Regards 
> 
> Arnaud 
> 
> 
> 
> The policy is harmful because:
> 
> 	1.	It does not restrain the frequency of AfriNIC reviews based on unsubstantiated claims by third parties.
> 	2.	It provides for rather draconian resource revocation on potentially shaky evidence.
> 	3.	It does not provide discretion for staff to dismiss or disregard specious complaints.
> 	4.	Refer to Ashok’s laundry list of legal problems with the proposal.
> 
> There may well be additional issues, but those are sufficient to justify my opposition.
> 
>> 
>> The differences may not be readily apparent because of the context of the entirety of the policy manuals in question (AfriNIC policy combined with this policy produces a very different and distinct result vs. ARIN policy including ARIN section 12 (resource reviews)).
>> 
>> =========== Marcus
>> Are you saying that members of this community don’t know what is good for them?
> 
> No, that is not what I said at all and I have great difficulty understanding how you arrived at that from my statement above.
> 
> I am saying that the textual similarity of this proposal and the ARIN section 12 taken out of context can be misleading because the consequences when you integrate this policy into the context of other AfriNIC policies and the AfriNIC RSA and legal environment is radically different from the consequences when you integrate ARIN NRPM section 12 into ARIN policy and the ARIN RSA and the legal environment in which ARIN operates.
> 
>> 
>> ===========
>> 
>> I will not restate all my previously stated objections here now, but to claim that anyone opposing this policy is doing so for selfish reasons is as erroneous as it is inappropriate.
>> 
>> ============ Marcus
>> Your haste to respond to this,  your negativity and repeated attempts to assume the high ground over the community are clear indications of what  to expect from you in this review policy discussion. 
>> 
>> Your voice counts as  other voices so you will never stop this community from doing what is good for the region and the Internet. 
> 
> This is a rather odd statement.
> 
> I’ve never tried to claim that my voice stands above the community, nor have I ever wanted to stop the community from doing what is good for the region and the internet.
> 
> Indeed, I oppose this policy because I believe it would be:
> 
> 	1.	Bad for AfriNIC as an organization.
> 	2.	Bad for the AfriNIC community.
> 	3.	Bad for the internet.
> 	4.	Bad for the region.
> 
> I can understand and accept that you have a different conclusion and believe the policy would be good for those same groups, but claiming that your belief is correct and that mine is false and based strictly on self-interest is both incorrect and tantamount to an ad hominem attack not permitted under the RPD list rules.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000531.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-July/000531.html> 
>> 
>> 
>> ============
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12 Jul 2017 9:29 pm, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Ashok,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for your responses.
>>>> 
>>>> 1. We are still in agreement that the review can be done by AFRINIC through a policy proposal as you stated all time.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. According to your own legal assessment, there seems to be some risks associated to the review as mandated by this version of the policy proposal.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 3. You agree that these risks can be managed
>>>> 
>>>> And your response states:
>>>> 
>>>> - There is no problem with 13.3.2 (Selected scenario)
>>>> 
>>>> - There is no problem with 13.3.3.a (reported scenario: members asked to be reviewed)
>>>> 
>>>> You also said nothing about about 13.3.1(Random scenario) and we therefore assume you are fine with that too.
>>>> 
>>>> Your concern lies with 13.3.3.b ( Reported Scenario): community complaint made against a member that warrants investigation.
>>>> 
>>>> A. Your main concern is about the reliability, admissibility and authenticity of the evidences to be provided by the third party to AFRINIC while reporting a ressource and you said:
>>>> 
>>>> ====
>>>> “ I shall never advise AFRINIC to embark upon an exercise where it will have to shoulder an obligation to test the reliability, admissibility and authenticity of such facts/data/information submitted by a third party.”
>>>> ======
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, it is the responsibility of the source of complaint to provide enough information to convince Afrinic to engage in the evaluation of the evidence/facts and a subsequent investigation if required.  As such there is no need for a legal document.  If supporting legal documents are required by Afrinic or provided by the source, this must be done through the appropriate mechanism which the legal counsel shall indicate to AFRINIC.
>>>> 
>>>> The current version of the 13.3.3.b is PDPWG consensual version introduced since version 3.0. Authors would not object to reverting to the original version of the text which says:
>>>> 
>>>> ======
>>>> c) Reported:
>>>> The members have requested the audit themselves or there has been a community complaint made against them that requires investigation.
>>>> ======
>>>> 
>>>> B. Your other concern is about the appeal process, and you said :
>>>> 
>>>> =====
>>>> “Whether you segregate the appeals as against (i) the result of the review or (ii) actions taken by AFRINIC based on the result of the review, in both cases AFRINIC is a party thereto. It cannot, consequently, put up a mechanism to have its own action reviewed. It simply does not make sense.
>>>> 
>>>> This is why since the beginning, we made a reference to the "Mauritius Code of Civil Procedure" where the process for arbitration is already provided for."
>>>> ======
>>>> 
>>>> The focus in this policy proposal is on appeal process for the result of a review. The appeal for action taken based on result of review clearly fall under the Mauritius code of civil procedure as the RSA is governed by the Mauritius laws and the RSA has no other arbitration mechanism.
>>>> 
>>>> The RSA has all the provisions for indemnification, liabilities, etc and the community trust the organization supported by its legal counsel to do the right things and stand to defend it everywhere.
>>>> 
>>>> As this proposal is describing how AFRINIC shall conduct the review mandated by the RSA and policies, it is proposed (by AFRINIC community) that in case of disagreement on the result of review done by AFRINIC Ltd (which are mostly based on compliance to policies), a reviewed member is given a chance (not mandatory) to challenge the review results before an appeal panel of knowledgeable volunteers from the community. The Panel conclusion on the result of the review is final, but does not prevent the appeal against action taken by AFRINIC.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hope this Helps
>>>> 
>>>> —Arnauld (on behalf of the authors)
>>>> 
>>>> Le 10 juil. 2017 11:08, "Ashok Radhakissoon" <ashok at afrinic.net <mailto:ashok at afrinic.net>> a écrit :
>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>> Find for your consideration my final assessment of the proposed policy under reference.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Ashok.B.Radhakissoon
>>>>> Legal Adviser
>>>>> AFRINIC
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170719/dc6f5f5f/attachment-0001.html>