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

Sat Dec 1 11:44:46 UTC 2018

Let us carry this through from beginning to end to a logical conclusion by the logic you have presented and by what the allocation policies and the MSA.

Under the policy – any IP allocation that is not used for its originally stated purpose is invalid.  As per my last email.
So – in the event of missing documentation and the originally stated purpose being unknown – you have two choices – declare the allocation invalid and force a re-application – or accept what the holder of the space claims was the purpose at face value.  In the event of the latter – that creates a massive inequality problem – because you are trusting one organization – while reviewing another – which creates a form of bias.  In the event of the former – since the prefix is invalid and it is affectively a new application – these applications would then be bound by the soft landing policy – which would in effect strip half the continent of their space and result in a massive expense.

Also – please keep in mind – any and all costs associated with retrieval of that information are for AfriNIC’s account – including the costs to generate said documentation – since it was under their watch the data disappeared – and it was their responsibility to preserve said documentation and look after it.  Are we REALLY sure we wanna go down this path?  I mean – ask yourself carefully if you are willing to potentially drive AfriNIC to bankcrupcy to preserve a policy that this community has clearly objected to for multiple years.

Just for once – can sanity prevail – and can we acknowledge that in the event of the organization being missing half the data – you cannot equitably audit anyone – and so you either have to declare it all invalid – force everyone to reapply – cause numerous legal battles – go bust - or you have to accept that well – these things happen – and in the interests of the industry – we decide to accept the status quo and move on.

Let’s stop being insane – and see where this path takes us by analyzing the TRUE impact of a policy like this and the damage it can do – put aside our egos – and realize that tomorrow is another day – and if we burn down the house in anticipation of a bush fire tomorrow for which we have no evidence – we will only screw ourselves.

Andrew

From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 13:58
To: Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Timothy, I became aware of it when I asked for the documentation.

I am well aware that I was a board member – I am also well aware that I had zero responsibility to the board of directors to inform them of anything once my term expired.  What I did and did not inform the board of during my term – I am not allowed to comment on because of the NDA that I signed – that I have repeatedly said I will not violate.  More than happy to release any communication with the board on any matter if the board is prepared to give me a waiver from the NDA on all matters – in which case I will happily answer this – and oh so many other questions.

Andrew

From: Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 13:46
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,
Comments in-line

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, 11:34 AM Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
Further comment inline:

I disagree with this. Just as you clarified that the previous issue did not likely happened under the current CEO, we may likely say the same for the staff too. A staff can not be blamed for a flawed procedure that is meant to have been corrected by the Organisation as a whole. Let's 'assume' the current staff has no idea about what you mentioned and the previous staff did not provide any documentation of such in the handing over notes, then trust me you can't blame the new staff in its entirety.

The staff were well aware of this corruption long before this staff review happened – I raised the issue of the corruption of the data with them during 2017.  If however, let us assume that they were NOT aware of this data corruption – that would indicate an even bigger problem – that data is being held with no knowledge of its corruption until it is raised by a member…. I don’t think I would even want to consider the implications of that.
Thinking about this now, I'm curious to know how long you have known about the data corruption before raising it in 2017 and if you took any steps further to inform the Board because I consider this very serious, not forgetting you were once a Board member yourself.

Andrew

From: Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng<mailto:akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:51
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za<mailto:mje at posix.co.za>>, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 11:23
To: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za<mailto:mje at posix.co.za>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 09:27
To: "aleruchichuku at yahoo.com"<mailto:aleruchichuku at yahoo.com> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com><mailto:aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com><mailto:yakmutd at googlemail.com>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net><mailto: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><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
Reply-To: "aleruchichuku at yahoo.com"<mailto:aleruchichuku at yahoo.com> <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com><mailto:aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 1 December 2018 at 07:02
To: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com><mailto:yakmutd at googlemail.com>, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net><mailto: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><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
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>

--

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa

mje at posix.co.za<mailto:mje at posix.co.za>       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496

For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za<https://ftth.posix.co.za>
_______________________________________________
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/20181201/2f2c0f14/attachment-0001.html>