Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 55
Percy Aniso
anipee4545 at gmail.com
Wed May 22 12:35:05 UTC 2019
It has been a great debates on the issues consigning the internet
resources.. And many more policies stated so far.
I therefore state that the PDWG should look in to the proposed policy and
come up with a consolidated plan in others to reach and agreement.
Thanks.
On Wed, May 22, 2019, 1:24 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: RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50 (Ahile shagba francis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 13:22:45 +0100
> From: Ahile shagba francis <ahilefranc at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50
> Message-ID:
> <CAKpA-zH6Q13=
> wmVNG9-HPXE0Dx83YCW15dXiWEVM816bgbvVBQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.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 55
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190522/993f4f0d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list