[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Sat Dec 1 08:14:31 UTC 2018

Hello All,
I think we should honestly answer this question, is there a need for
AFRINIC to review or audit allocated IP Resources?

A sincere answer to this question will guide the community and further show
the 2 distinct views we have in this community right now.

If we have a majority yes to the question above, as I would naturally
expect any business minded individual, then I think the major issue
here is *how
the review or audit is done *and the *penalty meted out to those found
guilty of misappropriation of allocated resources*.

Therefore, instead of opposing this policy outrightly just because of the
minority authors (as implied), then let the policy opposers state in clear
terms once again what to remove, modify and add as the case may be. (if
this is still possible and not too late).

That the end users of a resource will be disconnected because an ISP was
found to have breached the terms of allocation should not be good reason
why this policy should be thrown to the bin

If there are no plans to circumvent allocated resources, there should not
be any reason to be afraid of being audited or reviewed by the organisation
that allocated the resources in the first place.

I would rather prefer the policy state clearly how it would handle the
*unlikely* event of breaches not directly caused by the ISP.

I have also seen some questions posted on the list that are yet to be
answered by the authors (I may corrected if I'm wrong) . This is not good
as well. I want to read responses on how the random selection will take
place just as someone asked previously on this list.

Be it as it may, I agree that there are still some grey areas to be
corrected in the current PDP, but the entire blame should not be on the
Co-Chairs. How about members who wait till just days before on site
meetings to post their objections to a policy?

The rough consensus must have been reached by the co-chairs somehow, not
because they have been pushed to do so. If there is no way to send this
proposal back to the mailing list for discussion, then there is an appeal
process that can be used to seek redress just as it has been done before.

Personally, I would have also preferred the policy back to the mailing list
for a final time may be, but since the Co-chairs have pushed it to last
call, I respect their *hard* decision to have been reached in the interest
of the community. Aggrieved members of the community should use the appeal
process to argue their views and stop the unnecessary name calling.

Best!

Ti</>

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 8:17 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
wrote:

> Sorry – I need to correct something in my email below –
>
>
>
> I said there were no _*substantive*_ changes since the last rejection of
> this policy – this is inaccurate – there were **NO** - changes –
> substantive or otherwise – zero – zip – none – as per the website which
> publishes draft 6
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 09:27
> *To: *"aleruchichuku at yahoo.com" <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>, Daniel Yakmut <
> yakmutd at googlemail.com>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy
>
>
>
> Aleruchi,
>
>
>
> While I agree with everything you have said – let us also be pragmatic.
> This policy is pushed by the same crowd that walked to the microphone and
> agreed at the request of the community to drop another policy, and then
> reneged on it.  This policy has been rejected, as has the soft landing
> policy, over and over again – yet the authors do not give a damn about the
> will of the community or the good of the community.  Go and watch the
> videos of the Mauritian policy meeting – you will notice the same people
> involved in what happened there are involved in this policy as well.
>
>
>
> The authors have clearly demonstrated that they care not a whit about what
> this community wants or believes is good for it, they have demonstrated bad
> faith, and shown that the only thing they care about is shoving something
> through no matter the consequence – and the co-chairs have already shown
> that they either do not understand the concept of consensus – or simply do
> not care.  Fact is – there is precedent on co-chairs being overturned on
> appeal in another RIR – and when it happened – the person who was
> overturned – ceased to be a co-chair.  These co-chairs however are
> insistent on a path that ignores the consensus process, and seem hell bent
> on forcing a situation where they are overturned – yet again – or failing
> that forcing AfriNIC into an untenable and potentially costly process
> beyond the appeal process.
>
>
>
> Reality is – there were _*no*_ substantive changes to this policy from
> the last time it was rejected – and the objections to the policy that were
> stated back then have never been withdrawn, and by lack of changes in the
> text can be clearly demonstrated to not have been addressed – this flies in
> the very face of the definition of consensus – the co-chairs however simply
> do not care.
>
>
>
> Welcome to what our PDP process has become – the bullying of the minority
> supported by co-chairs who do not understand consensus – to push through
> agendas that have zero to do with the good of the community and more to do
> with standing your ground to prove that you can.
>
>
>
> And btw – before I’m attacked – yes – I have proposed some controversial
> policies over the years – fact is – all of them were withdrawn when the
> community wanted that.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> *From: *aleruchi chuku via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Reply-To: *"aleruchichuku at yahoo.com" <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 07:02
> *To: *Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net>, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy
>
>
>
> It's very sad that this policy still lingers like a nightmare after it has
> been rejected over and over again. It has consistently bred anger and
> mistrust.
>
> Please for the sake of unity, I will advice the chairs to do what is right
> by the people. DROP THIS POLICY.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Aleruchi
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 4:15 am, Daniel Yakmut via RPD
>
> <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181201/ac303cad/attachment-0001.html>