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

[Ernest Byaruhanga]

Sylvain,

Your comprehensive review and suggestions of the draft minutes is noted.
The final and published version will be updated where necessary and appropriate.

Ernest.


> On 17 Jul 2019, at 15:41, Sylvain BAYA <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> {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 would not be published within three weeks as expected.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. 
> 

[…]