[rpd] Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07" (IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).

Thu Dec 28 15:01:12 UTC 2017

> The co-chairs belief that the current version of the proposal addresses notes and observations made is absurd. Multiple objections remain which have not been addressed by this version and those objections were voiced again during the last call period with clarification that they were not, in fact, addressed.
> 
> -- This does not make any sense.   Look at the Changelog of the proposal.  The evidence is in the archives if you care to look dispassionately without any self-aggrandizement
> 

Yes... the change log shows some objections being addressed. Not all. Indeed a dispassionate reading of the record shows a pattern of the few vocal proponents of this policy consistently stating that objections which seek to declare lack of consensus rather than somehow modify the proposal are “baseless”. This simply isn’t valid. While seeking a workable compromise can be more desirable than abandoning a proposal, in this case, there are faction(s) that want to make soft landing more dysfunctional than it already is (SL-BIS proponents) and those who want to reduce the invasive nature of the current soft landing policy. In such a case, it seems to me that the only workable compromise is to leave the existing policy in place and accept that there is no consensus to increase the harmful restrictions that are currently in place. 

> The claim that there were “identical petition letters” rallied by “a community member” is utterly false. There were letters from multiple parties, some of which were posted by a single community member to the list on behalf of other community members who are not subscribed to the list and chose not to post directly. There is no basis for discounting or ignoring input from these community members. Further, the letters were not actually identical. Several of them were modified by the individuals prior to signing, including at least one which was written and submitted directly to the list by me (Owen DeLong).
> 
> -- It is this statement that is patently false and buttressed by your admission that some of them were modified so they would not seem identical.  The attempt to pervert the PDP was clear to see for anyone who cared to look

Did you even read what you wrote here?

If the Co-chairs had called then similar, that would be valid. However, once modified, regardless of motive (which you can’t possibly know despite your claim above), they are no longer identical, by definition. 

In fact, I modified the one I sent not to make it seem not identical, but because I had slightly different objections to the policy than the ones raised in the original.

Re-use of open source code is common practice in this industry. Re-use of Andrew’s draft, with or without modification is no different. It does not discount the value or legitimacy of the objections contained therein, nor should it be possible for Co-chairs to dismiss the number of objections on the basis of their similarity. 

> 
> 
> The claim that the objections to the co-chairs’ last call decision was from a single member of the community and “those he rallied” is also patently false. Andrew did not rally me into objecting to this last call decision, I got there quite on my own. Further, just because one or more members of the community encouraged others to join them in objecting to a proposal does not mean that those voiced should not be heard or count any less than any other voice. After all, there is no way I could convince someone to join me in objecting to a proposal that they were in favor of passing.
> 
> -- Doesn’t this confirm the rallying if your previous admission didn’t?  In any case, consensus does not require that everyone is happy and agrees. This is not possible but the Co-authors have obviously dealt with specific objections that are truly problematic and within the context being discussed

Consensus means a lack of sustained objections. Rough consensus means that the remaining objections have been addressed and that the remaining objectors are very small in number.

That is not the case here. I would object to this policy just as much if Andrew had remained silent throughout the process, so no, I was not rallied by Andrew. I chose to make use of his petition draft because I felt it was close to what I wanted to say and saved me time and trouble in drafting my comments.

> 
> “Everyone had however had several weeks of opportunity to comment when the revised version of the proposal was put out by the authors in response to community feedback” [sic]
> 
> This sentence ignores the fact that there were multiple objections raised during those weeks and that many of the earlier objections to this proposal remained unaddressed by the changes in this version. 
> 
> 
> -- Can you show us in the archives?  Like the Co-chairs, I don’t recall seeing any objections when the proposal was updated with community input.   Only to see a flurry of petitions designed to hijack the PDP when it gets to last call

Are you truly claiming there has been any period of “weeks” on rpd where nobody objected to this proposal since Nairobi? I think not. 

However, I will do the research on one condition... if I can find such objections, you join the call for the Co-chairs to reverse the consensus call and admit that it was indeed in error given such objections being present. 

Otherwise, why take the time since you will simply disregard the objections as has already repeatedly happened. 

> 
> 
> Further, one objector stated that he was no longer opposed to one particular section due to this last round of revisions, but did not remove his general objection to the proposal overall and did not state support for the proposal in general.
> 
> 
> The claim that there was only one objection that highlighted specific issues with the policy proposal also doesn’t match the record.
> 
> -- It matches mine.  I don’t recall these identical petitions highlighting any specific issues.
> 

Then your definition of “specific issues” differs from mine. 

To me, a specific issue is any particular point which shows how the policy proposed could be harmful to the community or otherwise shows an undesirable characteristic of the proposal. It does not have to be constrained to a request that the proposal be modified. It is valid to call for a proposal to be abandoned and simply be opposed to the goals of the proposal. 

> 
> I urge the co-chairs to review the record of this proposal and the various posts about the problems with this policy proposal and reconsider their decision in light of these facts.
> 
> -- I on the other hand urge the Co-chairs to stand fast in their convictions.  It was a good decision and a factual report.
> 
> Absent such an action by the co-chairs within the next 48 hours, I will be joining the other people who have already commented in calling for an appeal of this decision.
> 
> Should the board choose to take action on this policy proposal prior to the conclusion of the existing appeal and/or the appeal that is likely to result from this step, I urge them to take the action of remanding the policy back to the PDWG on the basis that the PDP was not followed and the declarations of consensus both at Lagos and at the conclusion of last call were in error and the record clearly shows a pattern which does not constitute rough consensus.
> 
> These actions are not only placing AfriNIC at risk, but are jeopardizing the credibility of the entire multi-stakeholder bottom-up consensus driven process on a global scale. This error must be stopped before it is allowed to go any further for the sake of the entire internet community.
> 
> -- Here we go again - litigation, putting AfriNIC at risk, etc etc.  Let’s stick with the facts and drop the rhetoric. AfriNIC can determine how it enacts its policies and has a community that consented for this to get to last call. That you do not agree has nothing to do with any risk or global process

Again with the rhetoric that ignores the facts. 

The community did not consent. A small fraction of the community vocally supported this proposal despite significant opposition. Regardless of my objections to or support of this proposal, the process here is quite objectionable. 

Owen

> 
> There are other nits I could pick with this report, (e.g. the questionable staff opinion), but I will leave those out for brevity here.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> Owen DeLong
> Concerned community member
> owen at delong.com
> 27 December, 2017
> 
> > On Dec 26, 2017, at 11:36 , Sami Salih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Dear AFRINIC Board,
> > 
> > Please find the attached report on the Policy Proposal Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07"(IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Sami Salih, Dewole Ajao
> > PDWG 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 
> > 
> > <IPv4 Soft Landing BIS-Report.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171228/e3309b71/attachment-0001.html>