Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50
Ahile shagba francis
ahilefranc at gmail.com
Wed May 22 12:22:45 UTC 2019
I agree with a review that is not paving ways for any irregularities, a
review that is transparent and intended to enhance effective utilization of
resources and satisfaction of end users, but then you must agree with me
that: 1. The end users stand the event of losing their network whereas they
know not what is happening between the ISP and the regulators. 2. Such a
policy should be well detailed 3.now reviews funded by external bodies
don’t seem transparent as intended, as more chances of accusations unjustly
made in terms of economic and political factors.
Ahile Francis
On May 20, 2019 8:25 PM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis (Owen DeLong)
> 2. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis (Owen DeLong)
> 3. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
> 4. Re: Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review
> by AFRINIC" informations update (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:46:52 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis
> Message-ID: <86E3C700-18AE-4A8E-9DDF-36D07912D8D3 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.
> >
> > I read
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
> > 2 weeks."
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.
> >
> > And I don't like it.
> > So much that I had to drop everything and voice my opposition to this
> > proposed change.
> >
> > Please note: I also think that all the other points Jordi raises are
> > very valid and important. But this one is a very big change. And as
> > mentioned, I oppose.
> >
> > If someone wants my proposal for improvement of this one part:
> > replace
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within
> > 2 weeks."
> >
> > with
> > "At the end of a meeting the chairs may pronounce their intentions, in
> > case there are no further substation developments regarding this policy
> > on the mailing list.
>
> May I suggest that the word ?substantive? replace ?substation? in the
> preceding
> paragraph?
>
> > A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
> > Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
> > mailing list, preferably as soon as possible after the Public Policy
> > Meeting. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working
> > Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public
> > Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has
> > been achieved.?
>
> I support this proposed language. I would, however, like to augment it as
> follows:
>
> ?Any substantial objection to a proposal during this last call period must
> be
> fully and adequately addressed prior to a determination of consensus.?
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:53:27 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis
> Message-ID: <FD2C63F6-6BA2-4D6C-95B9-14FBA1AA2726 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 6:16 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> >
> > ?El 18/5/19 14:11, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> escribi?:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.
> >
> > I read
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy
> proposal,
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus
> within
> > 2 weeks."
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.
> >
> > This was introduced after I suggested it, and it is very easy to
> understand it. If the chairs need to decide in 2-minutes during the
> meeting, it is more difficult to do a good work on that decision.
>
> It?s really not? If there is actual consensus, it?s pretty clear.
>
> If there?s any doubt, then a good rule of thumb is that is a pretty good
> indication of a lack of consensus.
>
> I?m not opposed to a last call period on the mailing list (in fact, I
> strongly support it), but for many reasons other than the difficulty of
> determining consensus in the meeting.
>
> > This is related to my previous request that the PDP also explicitly
> "count" the participants in the mailing list that can't come to meetings.
> This makes a bit more complex to decide on the spot during the meeting.
>
> Not really? It just requires the co-chairs to be up to date on the mailing
> list comments coming into the meeting. Especially if there is a safety
> valve in the form of a last call period? Comments which arrived late (just
> before or during the meeting) can be considered during the last call period.
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 18:04:04 +0000
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy
> Development Process Bis
> Message-ID: <07DFBB57-A493-491B-9888-49119C45EDC3 at consulintel.es>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hi Owen,
>
>
>
> ?El 20/5/19 17:53, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> escribi?:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 6:16 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> >
> > ?El 18/5/19 14:11, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> escribi?:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is
> no
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.
> >
> > I read
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy
> proposal,
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus
> within
> > 2 weeks."
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.
> >
> > This was introduced after I suggested it, and it is very easy to
> understand it. If the chairs need to decide in 2-minutes during the
> meeting, it is more difficult to do a good work on that decision.
>
> It?s really not? If there is actual consensus, it?s pretty clear.
>
> If there?s any doubt, then a good rule of thumb is that is a pretty
> good indication of a lack of consensus.
>
> I?m not opposed to a last call period on the mailing list (in fact, I
> strongly support it), but for many reasons other than the difficulty of
> determining consensus in the meeting.
>
> > This is related to my previous request that the PDP also explicitly
> "count" the participants in the mailing list that can't come to meetings.
> This makes a bit more complex to decide on the spot during the meeting.
>
> Not really? It just requires the co-chairs to be up to date on the
> mailing list comments coming into the meeting. Especially if there is a
> safety valve in the form of a last call period? Comments which arrived late
> (just before or during the meeting) can be considered during the last call
> period.
>
> The problem is that even during the meeting there can be emails in the
> list, etc. So, the consensus determination needs to be fair with all the
> comments. Furthermore, there is a lack of timing for the list vs the
> meeting.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 12:24:25 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Gregoire EHOUMI <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>
> Cc: Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
> review by AFRINIC" informations update
> Message-ID: <FBDA97B0-DE02-458E-B24E-61C70524BA60 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Gregoire,
>
> Your text below contains one flawed assumption? Namely that there _IS_
> always consensus that the problem a proposal seeks to solve is actually a
> problem.
>
> In the case of the proposed resource review policy, for example, it?s
> pretty clear that many of the people objecting to the proposal feel that it
> solves a non-problem.
>
> Now the proponents will jump up and down claiming that I?m opposing
> AfriNIC dealing with fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth. I
> entirely support the elimination of fraud through proper due process and
> with good checks and balances. AfriNIC already has the ability to do that
> with existing agreements. There is no need for additional policy to support
> it.
>
> Since the problem statement in the proposal is a non-problem, the proposal
> is, IMHO, unnecessary and the only true remedy to that is to eliminate the
> proposal.
>
> Not every proposal must survive to adoption. Sometimes a proposal should,
> in fact, be recognized as a bad idea.
>
> I say this with a tremendous amount of experience. If you look at my
> record in the ARIN region, you?ll see that I?ve made several proposals
> which eventually ended up being abandoned?. Many with my concurrence on the
> abandonment after gaining additional information through the discussion
> process.
>
> The problem we have here is that despite substantive and sustained
> objections, actual proof that the RSA contains all the tools needed, and
> documentation of how the existing policy in conjunction with the RSA allows
> AfriNIC to do the needful, proposers still refuse to accept that this
> proposal is unlikely to ever gain actual consensus (as opposed to
> erroneously declared consensus previously achieved).
>
> Hopefully authors will see that the proposal is gaining opposition rather
> than support and finally let the community move on.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On May 19, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <
> 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 <
> 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 ? 13:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> a ?crit :
> >>
> >> 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 <mailto:
> yakmutd at googlemail.com>> escribi?:
> >>
> >> 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 <mailto:
> mje at posix.co.za>> escribi?:
> >>>
> >>> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:
> owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <
> madomey at hotmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:
> melvinc0730 at gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
> >>>>>>>> To: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <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>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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>
> >>>
> >>> **********************************************
> >>> IPv4 is over
> >>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >>> http://www.theipv6company.com <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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >>
> >>
> >> **********************************************
> >> IPv4 is over
> >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> >> http://www.theipv6company.com <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 <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
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20190520/998eaac8/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190522/7f2ca802/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list