[rpd] Minute of the last PDWG in Kampala, Uganda

[Sylvain BAYA]

{Warning : you read the 12 pages but you might find this tl;tr}

Hi all,

I'm glad to see that this mail complies with the CPM section 3.4.2
(pasted below). I thing it
was possible because the new Chairs have actively worked with the
previous Chairs and with
the Staff (perhaps the Staff should be officially responsibilised for
taking the minutes -as
Secretariat is mentioned- to be reviewed by the Chairs prior to the
publication onlist.

...also, i know we have new Chairs and the CPM section 3.4.2 is not
clear about the publishing
action. I mean, if the deadline of publication is about the web site,
then due to the public
review we are started, we failed to comply. So if that is the right
interpretation,
we are challenged to improve at least two things :

+ Secretariat (= Staff)  takes the Minutes of the PPM, the Chairs
validate the draft of the
Minutes, then send it (draft of the minutes) to the RPD for a public
review. At end the
Minutes are published to the website (by the Staff) and the URL is sent
onlist (by Chairs).
All that within three weeks.

+ Add a provision to permit a deadline extension when, for some reasons
(think of the case
of two new Chairs even if not admitted by the CPM) the Chairs thought
that the Minutes
would not be published within three weeks as expected. Actually, there
is no provision
(see CPM section 3.4.2) to extend the publication deadline of the PPM
Minutes.

CPM section 3.4.2 : «[...]The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of
proceedings of the Public
Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.[...]»
 
other comments inline...

Le 7/10/2019 à 9:15 PM, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE a écrit :

> Dear all,

> Please find attached the minute of the  Policy Development sessions at

> the AFRINIC 30 meeting in Kampala. Uganda.


Many thanks to all those who was involved (last & new Chairs and the
Staff Secretariat :-).


> Please feel free to submit your comments on the minute within the next

> week. We shall publish the final version after then. Please send your

> comments to the mailing list


* Page 0 :

File Name : the name of your file should be something like "Draft
Minutes of the AFRINIC

30 PPM" but not 31

...as a new active contributor, i found the 12 pages of this report very
instructive, but

i'm not sure those who are contributing for long time will like to read
a so detailed,

so precise and longer report. {that is my personal opinion, i may be wrong}

In summary my contribution below consists of two folds :

+ Trying to contract the reported author's speaches to have a brief
summary of max 15

lines of 80 characters. (considering that for more details we can go to
the Authors slides)

+ Proposing to 

+ Asking to add a, URL, link to the slides provided by the authors after
each summary.

+ Asking to add a, URL, link to the policy proposal itself.



* Page 1 :

..* may the Staff always act practically as Secretariat for the PPM

..* i think you should add the following text "Contributors : [previous
Chairs]"

* Page 2 :

..* 2.0 : "[...]The community (is) has people from different backgrounds
and cultures[...]"


* Page 3 : 

..* 3.0 : i suggest a brieffer summary with a URL where to find the 2019
PIER report :

<https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/afrinic-pier-2019.pdf>

...then, you will not be forced to keep the below lines :

"[...]Highlights from the PIER on ambiguous CPM content:
- CPM section 5.4 (Soft Landing) is assumed to be the default policy
used in this
exhaustion phase of IPv4 space, however, it does not align with some
other sections
of the CPM, such as the 90% utilization in 5.4 to qualify for additional
addresses vs
the 80% utilization in other sections.
- CPM 5.7.1 allows for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 space, and does not
cater for other
resources such as ASN and IPv6. It is also not clear about how to cater
for transfers
as a result of mergers and acquisitions.
- The section on Sub-Allocation windows with a 12 months cap on allowed
space to be
sub-allocated does not align with the 8-months cap in the Soft Landing
policy.
- During phase 2 of soft landing, the maximum allowable IPv4 space to be
issued is /22
vs the other sections where /22 is the minimum.[...]"


* Pages 3 to 4 :

..* 4.0 : remove the following text and send the readers to the slides
of the author by providing
a URL.

"[...]- When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed, the main
concern was that
16 bits is a limited address space (RFC1930, section 9).
- This is no longer an issue with 32-bit AS numbers (RFC6793). If each
of the five RIRs
were to assign 100 AS Numbers a day, 365 days a year, it would take over
20,000
years to deplete the 32-bit space.
- When initial ASN policies were developed, the reliability of networks
was not so
good back then and it made sense that companies needing an ASN be
multihomed.
- Today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement. Some networks
may require
an ASN while not willing to be multihomed.
- The increased IPv6 deployment has also mandated the need for companies to
announce their IPv6 space with their own ASN without the need to be
multihomed.
- The author stated that ARIN and LACNIC already have such a policy in
place, and that
an equivalent proposal reached consensus at APNIC47. He also stated that
he will
submit a similar proposal to the RIPE community very soon.[...]"

..* 5.0 : Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and
the link to the policy
proposal.

* Pages 4 & 5 : 

..* 5.0 : if we are sure to have the following arguments into the slides
of the author, we
can remove it :

"[...]- At the moment, all the other regions have already in place a
policy proposal for
transfers, and all those have no restrictions.
- With Africa not having sufficient IPv4 resources, limiting the option
for incoming
transfers of IPv4 space makes difficult the opportunity to create new
businesses that
will need IPv4 resources. To make matters worse, phase 2 of soft-landing
will make
the number of resources that organisations within AFRINIC can get much
smaller.
- There is already a market situation where AFRINIC member organisations
are selling
resources illegally and under the table, this policy only makes it
official such that
such transactions are actually reflected officially in the whois db when
they happen.
- Deploying IPv6 now requires some IPv4 space. If there isn’t any left
and no transfer
mechanism to bring some into the continent, IPv6 adoption will
stagnate.[...]"

Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link
to the policy
proposal.


* Page 6 :

..* 6.0 : For simplicity i'll prefer that you replace all your text by
what i propose below :

"/The authors highlight that there is a /12 IPv4 block reserved from the
last /8 for some //
///

//

/unforeseen future uses (see CPM section 5.4.7.1 - soft landing policy)
but the CPM section //
/

//

/5.4.7.2 states that the BoD has the exclusive power to define when and
how to use it. //
/

//

/They present their policy proposal as a community-driven mean to
prevent the BoD to //
/

//

/eventually act without community involvement and consent. Authors add
that the //
/

//

/Community, via the PDP, is in better position to define the future use
of the reserved /12 //
/

//

/and that is the purpose of their policy proposal./

//

/Authors propose that the CPM section 5.4.7.2 be worded like this : “If
the reserved /12 //
/

//

/remains unused by the time the remaining available space has been
allocated, the /12 //
/

//

/will be returned to the AFRINIC pool for distribution under the
conditions of the phase 2 //
/

//

/of the soft landing policy” – hence giving community power to decide
how to use this /12.//
/

//

/Authors further pointed out that this policy proposal was initially
presented at Hammamet//
//in Tunisia but sent back to the mailing list for more community inputs
and refinements.//
//However, none were received hence it is still the same version from
Hammamet./

//

/See more on the slides of the Authors presentation : [URL]/"

Please add also the link to the policy proposal itself.

..* 7.0 : Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and
the link to the policy
proposal.


* Page 7 : 
..* 8.0 : i would prefer a of 15 lines max summary but it's just my
personal opinion.
Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link
to the policy
proposal.


* Page 8 : 
.* 9.0 : This is a good case of a ten (10) lines summary.
Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link
to the policy
proposal.


* Page 9 :
..* 10.0 :  I see this one as a more straight forward summary. Even if
it is more than 15 lines.
Please also add the link (URL) to the slides of the author's presentation.


* _Page 10_ :
..* 11.0 : a max of 15 lines (summary of the authors arguments) should
be also consider here.
Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link
to the policy
proposal.


* _Page 11_ :
..* 12.0 : The Minutes must also **mention the incident that occurred
when candidates had
the floor* *to try to convince the electorate. Remember that a question
was discussed twice
and ended by a vote... In fact, we have had the contribution (CPM
section 3.4.0) of the Legal
Advisor ; but its usefulness was disputed by someones.



> or to pdwg at afrinic.net <mailto:pdwg at afrinic.net> .

>

> We did not revive any comment or opposition to the policies on the

> last call. Hence, we shall be recommending those policies to the

> AFRINIC Board for approval as consensus has now been reached on them. 


Chairs, IMHO i think it is not needed to add this in this mail ; because
someones might be
unnecessarily frustrated.
...in fact, nothing (out of the nettiquette) clearly prohibits that
practice (unless you are
Varying the Process here) :-)
So i think we should accept it and take what is useful for this thread.


> Finally, we shall be fixing a date within the next week for our

> teleconference. If anyone has a preference for a time slot or day,

> please communicate this to us (via the mailing list or the above

> email), and we would try to consider them before proposing a day and time.

> Please note, the teleconference is for authors of proposed policies to

> come and explain their policies to the community and take back

> feedbacks. We SHALL NOT be seeking consensus during the teleconference.


Thanks for this very usefull initiative Abdulkarim & Moses.
Please send a separate mail, with a different subject like : "Updates
about the monthly
teleconference policy show program."
...like that you will be focus and you shall have less *useless*
(scope-ly speaking) comments
about the review of the *subject* of this mail.

Shalom,
--sb.


> Abdulkarim Oloyede

> Co-Chair PDWG

> [...]


-- 

Regards,
Sylvain B.
<http://www.chretiennement.org> 
__
Website : <https://www.cmnog.cm>
Wiki : <https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190717/bbd8fb9a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x0387408365AC8594.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190717/bbd8fb9a/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190717/bbd8fb9a/attachment-0001.sig>