[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 48

Wed Dec 6 16:23:04 UTC 2017

Dear all,
I have followed this issue on AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy since it began
last weekend.
It seems like an interesting conversation at first then it became an issue
that would not go away, then the name calling.
I think I do agree totally with Christian. The last call does not mean its
now a policy. There is absolutely no need for an appeal.
I think an appeal is only necessary after it becomes a policy. I would
suggest we channel our energy into raising issues on why it should or
should not be a policy rather than an appeal.

Thank you
Abdulkarim

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:32 PM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing
>       Policy (Lu Heng)
>    2. Re: FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing
>       Policy (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:58:14 +0800
> From: Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
> To: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
> Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft
>         Landing Policy
> Message-ID:
>         <CAAvCx3j+4urDxOiivY+JtDTViwZMs63yU_AXdvrpi=ZF-
> 2nfxA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Mark:
>
> While I agree with you almost all your words, but I think it is good to
> test the appeal process, so next time, if there is clearly no consensus
> amount community, a room of people can not pass a policy without addressing
> major objections from the mailing list.
>
> And frankly, I see no hope for an acceptable resolution(a.k.a  rough
> consensus) can be found both for this soft landing policy as well as the
> review policy due to huge ideology difference amount the communities.
>
>
>
> On 6 December 2017 at 22:16, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
>
> > For the Record - I am against this Soft Landing Proposal.
> >
> > Having said that,
> >
> > The way that I understand the policy proposal system to work is: (and
> I've
> > done a few myself, some passed, some didn't)
> >
> > 1) Some one or group of people make a policy proposal. They send it to
> the
> > PDP Co-Chairs and get a proper reference No for it and its posted to the
> > PDP Mailing list.
> >
> > 2) The Policy is discussed on the list and the policy is (if necessary)
> > refined. People indicate whether they support the policy or not and
> suggest
> > changes if appropriate. *I believe this is where the bulk of work should
> > happen.* This is usually the case in other regions.
> >
> > 3) At the next AFRINIC meeting (assuming that the policy has been in
> > circulation long enough - something like four weeks) - the policy is
> > further presented to the community members who are there. More exchange
> of
> > ideas can happen here - but it should be understood that only a fraction
> of
> > the PDP mailing list participants will be in the room. At the end of the
> > discussion period the PDP Co-Chairs try and gauge consensus (actually -
> > this should be an ongoing thing, bringing into account what happened on
> the
> > mailing lists before the meeting as well as in the discussion period in
> the
> > room). If they feel that a rough consensus has been reached - they move
> the
> > policy to "Last Call". If not - the policy reverts to the mailing list.
> >
> > 4) Once Policy is in Last Call - as long as there are no substantial
> > objections - the policy will be sent to the Board for ratification. This
> is
> > usually a "Rubber Stamp" affair - unless there is something harmful in
> the
> > policy towards the Company.
> >
> > 5) If there are no updates to the policy in about a year(?) - the policy
> > is withdrawn. The authors can also withdraw at any time.
> >
> > That's the generalisation of the current process.
> >
> > The appeal process is what I understand can be brought about if a policy
> > passes Last Call yet still has very unhappy people. I'd say that Andrew
> is
> > getting ready for an appeal - because the appeal process is new - never
> > been used - so is getting his ducks in a row. Right now - I sense that
> > enough people are objecting to this policy that it won't get past Last
> > Call, thus the Appeal Process will not be tested.
> > We've seen this before, Sunday (our esteemed Chair Person) and one other
> > proposed a policy for universities - so they could get IPv4 address space
> > easier. Before the meeting - this had very positive support. At the
> meeting
> > (in Lusaka, Zambia) it passed to last call - but got shot down by (as I
> > remember) a small but vocal handful of people. I still think this was a
> > dumb thing to happen - but anyway.
> >
> > I think also at AFRINIC that we have created a culture that if this
> policy
> > is proposed by X - then it must be bad. That is a very unhealthy culture
> > and, to coin a phrase, cutting your nose off to spite your face. Best
> > example of this is the "Inward bound international transfer" policy.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 06/12/2017 11:07, Christian Ahiauzu wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please
> > put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if
> > there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If
> my
> > postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at
> > this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by
> the
> > board.
> >
> > If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for
> > invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further
> > objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really
> lost
> > here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the
> Appeal
> > process.
> >
> > BR
> > Christian.
> > On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
> >
> >> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I
> had
> >>> to look up who the chairs actually are...
> >>>
> >>> I believe that this page shows: https://afrinic.net/en/
> >>> community/policy-development/pdwg
> >>>
> >>> 1. Dewole Ajao
> >>>
> >> 2. Sami Salih
> >>
> >> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.
> >>
> >> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with
> >> their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.
> >>
> >> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy,
> please
> >> end this discussion and start a new one!
> >>
> >> Kind thanks
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/
> listinfo/rpd
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africamje 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
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20171206/734dded9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:30:51 -0800
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>
> Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft
>         Landing Policy
> Message-ID: <21B969AB-5393-4522-81F8-BB831B8C55D8 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Christian,
>
> As others have stated, while this got kicked back to the list as a proper
> outcome of the last call,
> like the Review proposal, this should never have gone to last call in the
> first place. It was clear
> that there was significant sustained objection prior to the declaration of
> consensus. Said objections
> were never addressed in both cases. Thus, neither policy met the
> definition of rough consensus and
> in both cases, the co-chairs erred in declaring consensus.
>
> The first time, an appeal was suggested, but not followed through in the
> hopes that the co-chairs
> would learn from the experience and not make the same mistake again. Now
> that they have repeated
> the same mistake, there is a remaining concern that the co-chairs are not
> following the PDP and
> we hope that the review will get things back on track.
>
> It is vital to the integrity of the process that the co-chairs feel bound
> by it and that they
> not declare consensus where it clearly does not exist. Consensus is not
> the tyranny of the majority
> as many seem to be advocating.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Dec 6, 2017, at 05:55 , Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.
> edu.ng> wrote:
> >
> > Lu,
> >
> > I understand where you are coming from. But like you noted, the Internet
> number resources review policy has gone back to the mailing list from the
> final call status. Meaning, that the process of "checking again" works.
> >
> > If we think that the current PDP is flawed, then, it cannot be repaired
> by an Appeal process. Rather, just like some community members are
> currently doing, we solve that problem using a policy update or total
> change of an existing policy. The AfriNIC Policy Development Process BIS, I
> believe noticed the flawed nature of our PDP and is trying to solve the
> problems using a policy. If an appeal process was not called, the current
> objections to the IPv4 Soft Landing -BIS policy might still send it back to
> the mailing list and its status is stepped down. Now, with the appeal, it
> will still yield the same result but in a different way. But will this
> appeal stop other policies from entering into final call "prematurely"?.
> >
> > I really think the appeal at this point was not called for, with due
> respect to all parties involved.
> >
> > BR
> > Christian.
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2017 10:23 AM, "Lu Heng" <h.lu at anytimechinese.com <mailto:
> h.lu at anytimechinese.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Christian:
> >
> > Because there is one huge problem need to be fixed here.
> >
> > The chair declared consensus on the floor without considering t there
> are major objections in the mailing list in which was not addressed yet.
> >
> > It is not the first time, it happened last time with the review policy
> as well.(and possibly many other policies that I am not aware of)
> >
> > Both review and the soft landing policy, there is ideology difference
> between community members that just too big to be considered mirror
> objections.
> >
> > Just because some bring more people to the floor does not mean consensus
> can be reached without addressing major objections.
> >
> > Even, theoretically, there is one person ideologically disagree with the
> policy with a sounding argument, if that disagreement cannot be addressed
> with agreeable resolution, consensus can not be reached, and that is the
> very definition of the consensus decision making process.
> >
> > If you declaring consensus without considering that one person's
> ideological difference, you are not reaching consensus, instead, you are
> bullying that person to ignore the process.
> >
> > So this will need to be fixed here in the PDP, or, we will need to
> change consensus-based to vote based if that can be possible.
> >
> > On 6 December 2017 at 10:07, Christian Ahiauzu <
> christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng <mailto:christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please
> put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if
> there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my
> postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at
> this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the
> board.
> >
> > If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for
> invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further
> objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost
> here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal
> process.
> >
> > BR
> > Christian.
> >
> > On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at futureperfect.co.za <mailto:
> alan at futureperfect.co.za>> wrote:
> > Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za
> <mailto:alan at futureperfect.co.za>> wrote:
> > I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I had
> to look up who the chairs actually are...
> >
> > I believe that this page shows: https://afrinic.net/en/
> community/policy-development/pdwg <https://afrinic.net/en/
> community/policy-development/pdwg>
> >
> > 1. Dewole Ajao
> > 2. Sami Salih
> >
> > Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.
> >
> > Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with
> their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.
> >
> > Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy,
> please end this discussion and start a new one!
> >
> > Kind thanks
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Kind regards.
> > Lu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20171206/7e5c0c6d/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 48
> ************************************
>

--

-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Android app 
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.app.app4a98472fd6e6>, Windows 
app 
<http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/university-of-ilorin-mobile/168e5182-0689-4c80-b441-864a4ec39057>, 
Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/en/2013-09-02-10-18-35/bulletin-feed>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/6f37a620/attachment-0001.html>