[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy (Data Loss)

Mon Dec 3 17:30:06 UTC 2018

At this point, i think all the views on opposition and update of the clauses have been stated.
Also, the appeal against pushing this proposal to the last call is vehemently opposed. 

I think the only way forward is total clarification of these concerns by the authors and the co-chairs. If the mailing list is not satisfied with the clarifications given, then there is a process to follow to roll back the ongoing process.

I will like to point out that lack of communication between authors and members of the community is what caused an almost heated debate between similar policies “Simple Update of the PDP AND AFRINIC Policy Development Process Bis”

Communication is important. Let is get replies from the authors to trash out objections already stated and move forward in the right direction. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 3 Dec 2018, at 17:18, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12/3/18 4:28 PM, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa wrote:
>> +1 Nishal, this clarification was indeed necessary and helped a great deal.
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> One of the objections that slightly align to my           thoughts were seen asked or raised by someone recently. It can be found here, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008642.html
>> 
>> The issue of data corruption and lack of documentation is a recent development that was made to fore just few days ago, at least I never knew that existed and I'm are still waiting for clarification, but this time from AFRINIC not the authors.
> 
> My understanding is that the Data corruption happened in or around 2010. I became a Board Member from around AfriNIC-10 (Cairo) in 2009 and was a Board Member for 6 years until June 2015 - after AfriNIC-15 in Tunis/Tunisia. I never heard about the data loss until last week (end of November, 2018).
> 
> 
>> 
>> I know a few were claiming the financial implications of implementing this policy will be huge on AFRINIC and impracticable. However, I made a comment on the list that I'm sure staff assessment must have covered and clarified this position. If this was already stated in the RSA, then it was only logical that the necessary budget be made to accommodate it, simple IMHO. Therefore, I don't see this as an issue but the authors are free to clear any doubts on that, may be.
>> 
>> More so, I saw some comments and suggestions made via Staff Assessment on the last Draft 06 of the proposal. I will like to confirm if and how the comments were accomodated in the proposal, yet without any update to it since April.
>> 
>> At this point, let me mention that the sentiments and emotions shown here are unnecessary. There should be no need for any name calling either. Let every opposer of this policy articulate their objections together           and clearly state them here or just point the community and authors to where they have been previously raised but not addressed, then we can move forward from there.
>> 
>> Best!
>> 
>> Ti</>
>> 
>>> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 2:53 PM Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za wrote:
>>> On 3 Dec 2018, at 13:24, Daniel Yakmut wrote:
>>> 
>>> daniel,
>>> 
>>> > This clearly showed that the
>>> > authors of the Review Policy do not care about any input from the 
>>> > community.
>>> 
>>> the sentence above is unnecessary.  we understand this is an emotive 
>>> subject, but please try to debate the issue(s), and not the person.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > From the last date of submission, it means nothing was considered by 
>>> > the
>>> > authors from input made in Dakar meeting.
>>> 
>>> that could be better re-written as:  we have confirmation that no 
>>> changes were made to the policy, to accommodate any of the potential 
>>> outcomes from dakar.
>>> 
>>> now, that’s not quite the same as saying they did not consider 
>>> changes;  just that _no action_ was made on those considerations  ;-)   
>>> but more on that below.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > This means the policy remained as is without any input or review for 
>>> > over
>>> > six months.
>>> 
>>> we have confirmation that this is correct.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > Making it stale and should have been dicarded.
>>> 
>>> this is incorrect.  policies can be unchanged for up to a year.  
>>> sometimes, it takes a while to gather information, for 
>>> presentation/action.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have allowed the 
>>> > policy
>>> > come.up.for discussion in Tunisia.
>>> 
>>> no.  the co-chairs did not err in allowing discussion;  there is no 
>>> break from the rules of the PDP.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> i believe that, in the absence of changes to accommodate any outcomes 
>>> from dakar, this should not have gone to last call.
>>> there’s a very human understanding that:
>>> # if something is broken, and
>>> # if nothing changes to fix it, then
>>> # the original thing can still considered broken
>>> and i think that there are many people on the list that might simply 
>>> have viewed the current version of the policy in this manner.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> but, this all predicates that there _were_ actual outcomes in dakar.  
>>> the policy did not get passed in dakar, but were there recommendations, 
>>> or salient discussions on the mailing list, for the authors to address, 
>>> that were not actioned?  because, if there _are_ material problems that 
>>> were recorded and acknowledged (at least by the community) and not 
>>> addressed, then sure, there’s no case for last call.  but if there 
>>> were no material objections in dakar, and the policy was sent back just 
>>> for more discussion, then who knows, perhaps the last call for this 
>>> version is warranted.
>>> 
>>> here’s a different example - there was an update proposed to the 
>>> SL-policy, and the co-chairs sent this back to the mailing list for more 
>>> discussion.  there were no material objections (and, even though i 
>>> posted a question about this, that’s _not_ an objection), and if this 
>>> comes up for discussion again at the next meeting, it would be incorrect 
>>> to say that simply because it’s unchanged, it can’t be considered 
>>> for last call.  (please don’t detract in anything other than it being 
>>> “unchanged”)
>>> 
>>> so, to those that are saying that there’s still a problem, can you 
>>> please rather cite an example of an existing action/update/request that 
>>> remains unanswered, instead of simply saying:  “i don’t agree”.  
>>> because that’s something the co-chairs can work with.
>>> 
>>> —n.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181203/5901cf93/attachment.html>