[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Fri May 3 08:19:46 UTC 2019

> On May 2, 2019, at 14:11 , Gregoire Ehoumi <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> Actually it makes your arguments more inconsistent. In one instance, you oppose this policy without making any contributions to move forward (co-chairs pls note) claiming its unnecessary, duplicative and not a positive step for the community. And in other instance you claim that the current RSA is sufficient without providing any means which would ensure staff don’t use their discretionary powers to target and abuse resource members.
> 
> If I were you, I would rather work with the authors to have some agreeable safeguards in this policy, than to reject it out right and leave it at the digression of staff who if future can cause more harmful reviews of assigned resources, with nothing to hold them back.
> 
There is no inconsistency here. I believe the policy as written is useless or worse. At best, it is unnecessary and duplicative. even if the changes I mentioned were made. I’ve consistently said that.

The current RSA does not force staff to conduct reviews. This policy, in theory does.

There are harms in this policy that are not present in the RSA.

Removing the harms from this policy does not render it useful, it merely aligns it with the RSA.

Owen

> --Gregoire
> 
> ------ Original message------
> From: Owen DeLong
> Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2019 8:52 PM
> To: Gregoire Ehoumi;
> Cc: Benjamin Eshun;rpd;
> Subject:Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 28, 2019, at 11:01 , Gregoire Ehoumi <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr <mailto:gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>> wrote:
>> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> > The proposal would still be unnecessary and duplicative, but at least if those changes were
>> > made, it would be less harmful.
>> 
>> Be less harmful and now deserve working group's consensus ? 
> No, it would still not get my consent. I would still oppose it because it’s still unnecessary and duplicative and policy which is unnecessary and duplicative is not a positive step for the community.
> 
>> I can see you moved from  "i oppose, withdraw it or let it expire " to a different position.  Good. Wish you stay consistent this time.
> No, I was specifically asked what changes would make it less harmful and I answered that specific question. There’s nothing you can do without virtually eliminating the entire policy to make this policy something I would not oppose as being unnecessary and duplicative.
> 
>> 
>> —Gregoire
> I hope that clarifies the situation.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> ------ Original message------
>> From: Owen DeLong
>> Date: Sun, Apr 28, 2019 8:31 AM
>> To: Benjamin Eshun;
>> Cc: rpd;
>> Subject:Re: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update
>> 
>> > On Apr 27, 2019, at 01:38 , Benjamin Eshun  wrote:
>> > 
>> > Owen,
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:05 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Let???s recognize that the policy is unnecessary and the RSA is currently sufficient as it is.
>> >> 
>> > At least we agree partial here that the current RSA is currently
>> > sufficient as it is.  Because stated in Section 6 (d) (i) (d)
>> > ???Acknowledges: (i) that this agreement shall at all times be subjected
>> > to adopted policies;??? .
>> > There are no polices to guide staff  on how to investigate (review)
>> > the applicant???s utilisation of the number resources already assigned.
>> > Hence I fail to see how this policy is unnecessary.
>> 
>> There???s no policy that tells the staff how to run the whois software either, yet
>> we have a working whois system.
>> 
>> Proscription of how the staff goes about accomplishing their oversight functions
>> is not a policy matter. It???s a matter for the board and management of AfriNIC.
>> It???s procedure, not policy.
>> 
>> > 
>> >> 
>> >> The truth that this policy is unnecessary, duplicative, and potentially harmful?
>> > 
>> > I have proved that this policy is very necessary and rather seeks to
>> > provide a framework in which staff can use to ensure transparency,
>> > objectivity and fairness in the review of  assigned resources.
>> 
>> No, you have not. The policy remains unnecessary, duplicative, and potentially harmful.
>> 
>> This policy is a giant step away from fairness as it offers a disproportionate denial of service
>> attack vector against large resource holders.
>> 
>> 
>> >> The truth that the community has repeatedly rejected this policy and it is unlikely to come to consensus?
>> >> The truth that the authors changes to between the previous version and the current version are minimal and fail to address the majority of objections?
>> >> The truth that many of the objections to this proposed policy have existed almost as long as the policy and still remain unaddressed by the authors?
>> >> 
>> > I fail to see the objection that was  raised and not addressed by the
>> > authors, except the objections that this policy is costly and time
>> > consuming for staff, if not, unnecessary,  duplicative  and harmful
>> > The proposal has a long life and I see efforts of the authors to
>> > address  real objections. What I have not seen is propositions to
>> > improve and make things harmless.
>> 
>> I provided a substantial list a few weeks ago??? Perhaps you should read it.
>> 
>> You want to make it harmless, then do the following at a minimum:
>> 
>> 	1.	Remove the provisions requiring staff to investigate a signed complaint even
>> 		if they feel the complaint is specious at best.
>> 
>> 	2.	Take out the random complete audits.
>> 
>> 	3.	Quantify and place strong limits on what staff can and can???t demand or do
>> 		during such a review.
>> 
>> 	4.	Prohibit the possibility of multiple simultaneous reviews of the same organization.
>> 
>> 	5.	Ideally, specify that no additional reviews can be started against an organization
>> 		from the time a review begins until the end of the 24th month after the review
>> 		has concluded. (The current language about after a full review is completed
>> 		is vague and leaves open the possibility of declaring an earlier review not
>> 		to have been ???full??? whatever that???s supposed to mean.
>> 
>> The proposal would still be unnecessary and duplicative, but at least if those changes were
>> made, it would be less harmful.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190503/25759743/attachment-0001.html>