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

Sat Dec 1 10:35:48 UTC 2018

Andrew,

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 11:10 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
wrote:

> Comments in line –
>
>
>
> *In the likely event that your claim is correct, moving forward, I will
> like to ask if it will be impossible for the organisation under review to
> provide all necessary documents (including the lost, the archived, the
> forsaken body of emails) to justify the manner of usage of their allocated
> resources? The policy proposal gave a timeline for the entity under review
> to provide documentation (both lost and retrievable, I suppose) to justify
> and assist staff investigation. This should be sufficient IMHO! *
>
>
>
> *I believe an error can be corrected at the point of discovery**. This is
> applicable to any organisation. That we should wait till we resolve issues
> of lost and long gone documentations before proceeding with the review of
> allocated resources (which the RSA already stated clearly) is
> impracticable!*
>
>
>
> I strongly disagree with this – because it opens the door to an
> organization being able at will to change the justification for space that
> is not afforded to other organizations.
>
>
>
> As an example – if an entity applied for space for purpose X and a review
> is done, and documentation is available, and they are found to NOT be using
> the space for purpose X, there is nothing in the policy that allows for a
> revised usage state – that simply is not there under the current policy as
> proposed.
>
Is there anything like a *revised usage state* in the RSA that allows an
entity to come forward at will or upon invitation to revise the purpose for
which a previously allocated resource(s) was based? I'll like be clear on
this.

> However, if an entity applied for space for purpose Y and the
> documentation is NOT there, they are then free to modify their motivation
> and justification as they wish and claim it as the original justification –
> this is drastically prejudicial to those who’s documentation AfriNIC still
> has and is not uniform of equitable.
>
To be honest, this is not impossible. However, as I stated earlier, the CEO
or anyone responsible for this may have to clarify this situation to the
community and the extent of damage, just in case this assertion is true. We
may be able to proffer a reasonable solution, moving forward.

>
>
> The way to fix this would be a modification of policy to cater for this
> situation – which should have happened under staff review had they brought
> this to the attention of the community.  This was not done – and since a
> policy that is modified has to go back to the floor for ratification – this
> policy cannot go through in its current form – because it is prejudicial
> and I would argue anyone reviewed under this policy would have grounds to
> challenge the review on the lack of ability to uniformly apply the policy
> and the methods of review, thereby invalidating the entire policy.
>
While not being pre-emptive of the appeal process, I think it is the only
way forward to challenge the rough consensus already declared by the
Co-chairs.

>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:51
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc: *Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy
>
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 9:40 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> wrote:
>
> Timothy,
>
>
>
> AfriNIC HAS **NEVER* *publicly acknowledged the loss of a large portion
> of attachments associated with application documents.  How is it that when
> we talk about audit and staff assessment – that it does not come to light
> to the community that Afrinic does not even have a large amount of
> documentation associated with the applications that would demonstrate how
> they were applied for?
>
> This will be serious if true. I think the AFRINIC CEO should provide
> clarification to this. I will not like to be misled. Just in case this
> claim is true, has it been remedied? When too?
>
>
>
> This documentation I still maintain is critical for a fair audit that
> covers all aspects – and if you do not have said documentation for ALL
> members – to act on it against SOME members would be prejudicial.
>
> I agree with you on this, only if the above is confirmed to be correct.
>
>
>
> So to refer to staff assessment – how was THIS not brought up in staff
> assessment – and does this not put paid to the lie that the staff
> assessment in and of itself is flawed?
>
> This has to be clarified too, just only if and only if your previous
> assertion was true!
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:23
> *To: *Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
> *Cc: *rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy
>
>
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> See responses in-line
>
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 8:52 AM Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za wrote:
>
> From what Andrew is saying - the policy should never have gone to last
> call if there have been no changes. That's how the PDP process is meant to
> work. In reality - if the whole community accepted seeing a policy for the
> second time - then fair enough - but that is NOT the case here. I strongly
> oppose this policy. I have also watched the antics of the people pushing
> this policy and I think it was extremely rude and totally out of place for
> one of their party to call someone else in the room a "visitor" -
> suggesting that that other person had no rights to be present. The person
> being subjected to this treatment provided much needed input (and policies)
> to the Policy Development Process - especially regarding IPv6 - which is
> our future.
> We should have no place for Name Calling.
>
> Not speaking for the person here, but I remembered watching it remotely
> where the said person clarified his statement.
>
> I never heard an apology either.
>
> I think you should watch again, the person apologised if his statement has
> been misinterpreted and even heard applause from the room afterwards.
>
> Anyway - I believe that the PDP Co-Chairs have made a mistake and this
> Policy has not reached a positive Consensus (actually quite the opposite to
> Positive). It should not be at last call.
>
> The Policy - if used - is also extremely dangerous to the existence and
> financial well being of the Company (AFRINIC).
> It really should be withdrawn.
>
> I thought Staff Assessment was conducted. I believe this must have been
> sorted out and necessary clarification provided.
>
> On 12/1/18 9:15 AM, Andrew Alston 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>
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 09:27
> *To: *"aleruchichuku at yahoo.com" <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>, Daniel Yakmut
> <yakmutd at googlemail.com> <yakmutd at googlemail.com>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD
> <rpd at afrinic.net> <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> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Reply-To: *"aleruchichuku at yahoo.com" <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 07:02
> *To: *Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> <yakmutd at googlemail.com>,
> Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net>, rpd List
> <rpd at afrinic.net> <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> <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
>
> --
>
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>
> mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
>
> 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
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181201/2c14fb6f/attachment-0001.html>