Search RPD Archives
[rpd] . Re: Was - Policy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update (Owen DeLong)
opeyemi oseni
opeyemiosenni at gmail.com
Wed May 22 15:49:37 UTC 2019
policy development process should lead to clear and strong unresolved?
Technical? Objectives which motivate instigators and working group to
withdraw a proposal only, for the sake of getting more analysis,
consultation, or design a better solution to the problem being solved.
Abiodun Mohammed oseni
On Mon, 20 May 2019, 20:25 , <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/c00b7d17/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list