[rpd] Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Mon May 20 11:13:57 UTC 2019

Hi Big,

El 19/5/19 22:45, "Big Jayz" <jjamesonuh at gmail.com> escribió:

Hi Jordi,

I agree with you that the problem statement of this proposal is not clearly
defined.

However, since the registration service agreement (RSA) already provides a
framework for investigation of allocated resources in view of curtailing
abuses of any sort, I think the obligations of members to comply is
necessary since the Internet number resources is finite.

Precisely, you said it all: the RSA already provides the framework. Nothing
else is needed.

The staff should confirm that they are able to investigate when there is
any suspicious case of policy compliance. This means that any other member
can also provide AFRINIC staff information when it has information about a
possible policy violation case. If this is the case, as I believe, this
policy is not needed.

Regards,

Jordi

On Mon, May 20, 2019, 11:25 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
wrote:

> Hi Big,
>
>
>
> I just realized that you sent the email only to me, not sure if it was
> your intent, or you missed copying the list. I’m fine if you want to copy
> back my response to the list.
>
>
>
>
>
> El 19/5/19 22:45, "Big Jayz" <jjamesonuh at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hi Jordi,
>
>
>
> I agree with you that the problem statement of this proposal is not
> clearly defined.
>
> However, since the registration service agreement (RSA) already provides a
> framework for investigation of allocated resources in view of curtailing
> abuses of any sort, I think the obligations of members to comply is
> necessary since the Internet number resources is finite.
>
>
>
> Precisely, you said it all: the RSA already provides the framework.
> Nothing else is needed.
>
>
>
> The staff should confirm that they are able to investigate when there is
> any suspicious case of policy compliance. This means that any other member
> can also provide AFRINIC staff information when it has information about a
> possible policy violation case. If this is the case, as I believe, this
> policy is not needed.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019, 22:59 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Gregoire,
>
>
>
> I don’t think what I’ve said is against the Consensus definition of my
> previous proposal.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, I agree that complex proposals require more time, however,
> there must be a clear definition of the problem statement, which in my
> opinion, this proposal is lacking for.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 19/5/19 13:40, "Gregoire EHOUMI" <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr> escribió:
>
>
>
> Hello Jordi
>
>
>
> Each proposal follows its own lifecycle.
>
>
>
> By default, proposals attempting to solve real and delicate problems
> never have easy life.
>
>
>
> They require long and tedious discussions, analysis and evaluations. The
> soft landing policy was a good example. It took almost 3 years and 14
> versions.
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy
>
>
>
> I am sure you’ve seen this in other regions and at IETF.
>
>
>
> When everybody concurs to positive discussions, the process produces good
> outcomes which are not necessary about passing proposals
>
>
>
> If I may quote your definition of consensus in the withdrawn proposal of
> update to the PDP:
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d1#proposal
>
>
>
> #######
>
> 3.1.1 Definition of “Consensus”
>
>
>
> Achieving “consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for and
> against, nor that the number of “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even
> participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not
> only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community,
> regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all
> critical technical objections have been resolved.
>
>
>
> In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the
> community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the
> proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to
> “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who
> disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered
> a lack of consensus.
>
>
>
> Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their
> nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a
> member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive
> many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might
> consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically
> refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those
> expressions of support against the proposal.
>
>
>
> For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs
> and the IETF is actually that of “rough consensus”, which allows better
> clarifying the goal in this context, given that “consensus” (Latin for
> agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by all”’ (unanimity). More
> specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all
> issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated
>
> ######
>
>
>
> PDP should lead discussions to clear and strong unresolved  “technical”
> objections which motivate instigators and working group to withdraw a
> proposal only, for the sake of getting more analysis, consultations,  or
> design a better solution to the problem being solved.
>
>
>
> Withdrawing proposal to seek collusion with conflicted parties or to match
> opponents aspirations not publicly expressed is not good for the community.
>
>
>
> We wait to engage on your magic solution.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
>
> --Gregoire
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 13 mai 2019 à 13:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a
> écrit :
>
>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
>
>
> I think if proposal authors (in general, not just this proposal) are
> really looking for the good of the community, when there is such continued
> opposition (taking this proposal as an example) after 3 years and they
> aren’t able to clear it despite so many new versions, something need to be
> understood in between-lines:
>
> Either the community really don’t like it and this perception will not
> change (at least at this time), or they are not capturing what should be
> changed or updated to advance it.
>
>
>
> So yes please, have some generosity with the community and have a rest on
> this. Possibly the best way is withdrawing it, but alternatively a year
> without updating it will be sufficient.
>
>
>
> After some time, authors can come back. A new version with face-to-face
> meeting discussions may be more helpful than the actual endless thread by
> email.
>
>
>
> I’ve done this myself a month ago with one of my proposals in RIPE. I
> still believe I was right (so it was a really difficult decision), and it
> was just a matter of wording in the actual policy text, which my proposal
> was trying to solve, but the people were not happy **at this time** to
> continue the discussion, and trying to force it will not help. I’m
> convinced when time passes, I may decide to come back later, and may be
> after a rest, it may go thru.
>
>
>
> It is a personal authors decision, and I’m sure being smarter will help
> more than trying to push harder.
>
>
>
> In the next meeting I’m going to explain something **very relevant for
> AFRINIC community** that may help authors of this proposal to provide an **alternative
> version** with may better match the situation. Please, stay tuned.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 13/5/19 18:50, "Daniel Yakmut" <yakmutd at googlemail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> Dear Jordi,
>
>
>
> I feel that an approach as you described, could be prescribed for the
>  "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC"  proposal. The authors could
> give it a rest for now and allow time to either present an opportunity for
> the community to see the importance of the proposal or someone someday
> takes up the proposal polishes it, present it  and it gets through.
> Whichever of the paths the authors take, at the end of the day it will be a
> win-win situation.
>
>
>
> Simply,
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
>
> While I don’t agree with this policy proposal, I think it is really
> dangerous to stick in the PDP a way to avoid a policy to be submitted
> “again” during so much time.
>
>
>
> In addition to that, either same or different authors, may re-think a
> given policy proposal, and sometimes, something that didn’t reached
> consensus, despite different versions, can be accommodated, or just a short
> period of time (example, 6 months, between two consecutive meetings),
> either because market, technical, or “happenings”, may change the view of
> the community.
>
>
>
> Let me give you one example.
>
>
>
> LACNIC has been discussing inter-RIR transfers for several years. THREE
> different policy proposals have failed, even with different authors, small
> differences among those proposals, etc.
>
>
>
> I was never part of the co-authors of those 3 proposals.
>
>
>
> About six months ago, noticing that NOT having this policy in the region
> is damaging the region, I decided to propose it, asked for other co-authors
> to participate in the list and in fact I proposed it also in AFRINIC.
>
>
>
> Last Tuesday this policy proposal was presented for a first time in the
> LACNIC meeting, and it reached consensus, after a very successful
> discussion in the list, which allowed to update the text in several
> versions.
>
>
>
> I think this is the perfect example of why I will not avoid a proposal to
> be submmited even if the discussions don’t draw a succesful discussion. I
> may be as dangerous for the region as not getting progress in something
> that may become an emergency.
>
>
>
> However, the chairs can decide to give a very short discussion time in the
> meeting (for example just 10 minutes), to a policy proposal that despite
> not reaching consensus, the authors are not bein able to evolve with the
> inputs from the community. This is possible with the actual PDP, nothing to
> be changed for that.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 13/5/19 16:52, "Mark Elkins" <mje at posix.co.za> escribió:
>
>
>
> I think there should be a policy that states that any Policy that has not
> gone to last call (successfully unchallenged) and is older than two years
> must be withdrawn after the next meeting from the Policy Development
> Process and can only be brought back after two years.
>
>
>
> This particular policy would be a great candidate!
>
> On 2019/05/12 23:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2019, at 12:30 , Benjamin Ledoh <benjamin.ledoh at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Community,
>
>
>
> Marcus asked simple questions to Melvin. I was expecting Melvin to respond
> but as usual, Owen jumped with his blablabla. We all know that Owen has no
> company in the Africa Region; he has no interest in this policy and every
> time he is defend or support policy that could destroy Afrinic. It is not a
> secret that he hates Afrinic and now is on mission (for a pay master -- I
> stand to be corrected). The less I say, the better for this community.
>
>
>
> This is very very interesting…
>
>
>
> It’s true that I’m no longer associated with a company that has any
> operations in the AfriNIC region.
>
>
>
> I agree with you that the less you say, the better for this community.
>
>
>
> That’s pretty much where the truth of your statements ends.
>
>
>
> I have tremendous interest in this policy for the good of the region and
> the good of the internet, both of which stand to be substantially harmed by
> the policy for the multiple reasons I have previously outlined.
>
>
>
> I have never defended or supported policy which I believed could destroy
> AfriNIC. Indeed, I am opposing this policy because I believe it would be
> harmful to AfriNIC.
>
>
>
> I’m actually quite fond of AfriNIC and many of the people who work there.
> I count much of the AfriNIC staff and many members of the community as
> friends. I have no idea where you have come up with this idea that I hate
> AfriNIC. I assure you that if I hated AfriNIC, the easiest thing for me to
> do would be to turn a blind eye to this policy and walk away allowing it to
> do the damage it will surely do if it is adopted. Indeed, I think if you
> review my history, you will find I do not spend anywhere near this level of
> effort to try and improve things that I hate.
>
>
>
> I also am not sure what you mean by “on a mission for a pay master”.
> Nobody is paying me to do this. It is true that I have received partial
> expense sponsorship to attend some AfriNIC meetings from various sources.
> It is true that I have done other consulting work for a variety of
> organizations that are AfriNIC members. It is also true that no
> organization or employer has ever been able to dictate the opinions I
> express in any public policy forum. I’m quite certain that if you check
> with any of my former employers, you’ll be easily able to confirm this fact.
>
>
>
> The pathetic aspect in this is the submission of Daniel. Brother Dan, in
> Yoruba, there is a say: "You don't team up with opponents to vandalize your
> family's property". To a wise, a word is enough.
>
>
>
> Are you accusing me of vandalism, sir? If so, I would like to see you back
> up that claim with some evidence or facts. Otherwise, it is an
> inappropriate ad hominem attack which is not permitted by the list AUP. If
> not, please explain yourself more clearly or make an appropriate apology.
>
>
>
> By the way, I am looking for sponsorship to travel to Kampala to attend
> AIS. Can you be of help? Can you direct me to any foundation? I hope you
> will take it cool. (LOL)
>
>
>
> I am not sure if the Larus foundation is still taking applications for
> Kampala or not. You could try there. I believe AfriNIC also has a
> fellowship program, but I’m not sure when their application period closes,
> either. I don’t know if there are other foundations out there offering
> grants.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
> Benjiloh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 6:03 PM Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
>
>
> Indeed you gave the point blank solution to what I personally have been
> advocating.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Daniel
>
> On Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:14 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Melvin
>
>
>
> *I can see you suddenly  have interests for the review policy proposal.
> Please review  RPD  and PPMs  archives as it is not  productive to replay
> old discussions.*
>
>
>
> *Please could you provide answers to the following questions *
>
>
>
>
>
> > This policy has a lot of problems.
>
>
>
>
>
> *It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has a lot of
> problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the problems
> and propose texts to address them?*
>
>
>
> It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal is flawed
> must provide text to address those problems. However, let me propose text
> which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that it cannot be
> said that I did not do so…
>
>
>
> Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the BEGIN and
> END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:
>
>
>
> —— BEGIN ——
>
> —— END ——
>
>
>
> I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does not create
> any new policy problems like the current proposal.
>
>
>
> While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your current
> problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the material
> defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy alternative.
> (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy alternative to
> the current proposal).
>
>
>
> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
> the review.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting end
> users?  The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and I
> don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.*
>
> Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not understand
> that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of an ISP
> that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP that
> were using those resources?
>
>
>
> If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such revocation
> will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly believe that,
> then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC registration process
> meaningless compared to operational practice and you wish to create a
> separation between the two. I realize that currently the two are joined
> only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think it is
> irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
> by AFRINIC" informations update
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an
> issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something
> fundamentally wrong about it. It’s quite obvious that this proposal draws
> way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to
> be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in
> Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.
>
>
>
> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it
> is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen
> has also pointed out earlier, the term “annual meaningful report” is an
> ambiguous term. What is a “meaningful” report? To whom? What are the
> factors? How is “meaningful” defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions
> of “meaningful”. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this
> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly
> speaking, although this proposal has been “re-proposed” over and over, I do
> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes
> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect
> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been
> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as
> gesture of their sincerity. You can’t just post something that’s almost
> identical by pretending your audience were blind.
>
>
>
> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not
> have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within
> its regions. It’s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of
> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some
> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of
> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to
> Afrinic’s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.
>
>
>
> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
> the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have
> violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs
> will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost
> connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea
> what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the
> Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy
> will bring is quiet the opposite.
>
>
>
> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is not
> well drafted and the authors haven’t well considered its potential
> problems. It’s impractical when considering Afrinic’s current situation.
>
>
>
> Let’s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over
> and over again, there must be something wrong about it.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Melvin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190520/105cfa78/attachment-0001.html>