[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Caleb,

 

I’m not discussing the chairs decision here, especially because they also said “we shall work with the authors of this proposal in the coming months to see if there can be a way forward on this proposal”. Reading the full text of what chairs are suggesting is needed to fully understand their view. At least, this is how I read it.

 

I think this is a clear indication of some actions here taking place.

 

What I will like to ask you, and not speaking about *any* specific policy proposal, so please, forget about “all” the proposal at the time being, just in general:

 

Even if the PDP states that a policy will expire in one year, considering that the meetings happen twice a year, you don’t think that authors must heard the community inputs and provide a new version at least for each meeting?

 

Or if we make the question in the other way. Do you think it makes sense that the authors ignore the inputs from the community and then they present the same again and again in every meeting?

 

For example, even after one year, and author can just do editorial updates, but still not include any changes as requested by the community. Clearly this will bring the community just keep ignoring the proposal. Then it doesn’t make any sense that time is devoted to it (neither in the list or in the meeting).

 

Regarding your point about a single author with 10 proposals. There is no any PDP that has anything against that. As you may expect, that will become a discrimination. If an author, or a group of authors, believe there are some problems in the CPM, they have the right to present them, never mind is 2 problems or 10 problems.

 

And I think it is clear that since several years ago, I keep insisting if somebody is volunteering to provide policy proposals (and I’m happy to help them). But you know how many responses I get when I do that work for other folks? Anyway, I will keep insisting and try to incorporate local people. Unfortunately, in this occasion none of the co-authors was there to present in person or willing to present, and even if remote is possible, it doesn’t work the same, we all know (and there were lots of technical problems in the network this time).

 

Note that sometimes, problems are related, and when I tried to present a long and complex policy proposal to any RIR, the chairs and the staff, always suggest: please break the problem in smaller ones, so it is easier to focus and may be reach consensus.

 

So, I could perfectly send a single policy proposal with 10 problems being resolved in a single text. But this is not going to help anyone.

 

Furthermore, even if this is not stated in the PDP, and just to give you an example, in APNIC, a single policy proposal with several parts or problems, often reach consensus in some part of it. This is perfectly possible also in AFRINIC (I don’t think the PDP say otherwise). So, the chairs just need to ask consensus in specific parts of the proposal. Again, this is not stated in any PDP, however sometimes is done.

 

So again, trying to restrict authors for a limit of proposals, is not, at all, good for the community.

 

What is good is that authors get *really* involved, responding in the list, trying to get the community participating, and trying to amend the text to follow the community wishes, not just authors views.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 22/12/19 12:26, "Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele" <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Dear Abdulkareem, 

 

Thank you for your insight which I will like to provide you a context before you take a wrong decision without consulting other parts of the CPM to guide your decision. 

 

My advisory will like to point to section 3.4.1 of the CPM as quoted below. 

 

 

 

A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved by the AFRINIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version of the proposal. A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.

 

The summary of the the highlight part simply guides you to know that even if  single number or alphabet is inserted into the draft proposal with or without putting into consideration all inputs from the community, it is still the perogative of the authors as any insertion into the draft proposal naturally restarts it's one year life circle. 

 

It is therefore a clear guidance with less ambiguity that if the authors have fulfilled this aspect of the CPM for thier draft policy proposal, section 3.6 of the CPM cannot hold forth.

 

While section 3.6 speaks to variation only in cases of emergency , the ambiguity in that section cannot be exploited in the case of fair hearing that you are expected to adjudicate on. The word adjudication does not in this case put you as a judge over a policy but to provide administrative guidance as clearly explained in section 3.3 which states that "The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions.

 

That said, an attempt to exploiting section 3.6 which has lots of ambiguity for it's provision which says it is a" ONE TIME" thing could also be seen as an abuse of power which is subject to all forms of interpretation especially when the provisions did not clearly state the limited powers of the PDP Co-chair to remove /reject or deprive a policy FAIRNESS hearing as enshrined in section 3.2 of the CPM. Therefore, there is no emergency that allows you invoke such provisions without consultation with the authors. 

 

Additionally, your argument is for time management, but the argument is flawed as I recall that some Draft proposals passed to last call which buys you time expected that we do not have a single author coming up with 10 policy proposal for a single meeting. Perhaps, your invoking that 3.6 clause for emergency situations should allow you discuss with some authors who have more than 2 policies at a specific PPM to allow for the policies they introduced to atleast pass for time management before they can reintroduce another. 

 

While my submission is only advisory, I believe it provides some guidance and logical sense for the variation on emergency which will be subjected to other parts of the provisions of the CPM.

 

Regards 

Caleb Ogundele 

 

 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 6:30 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

Dear Caleb

See below 

 

"3.6   Varying the Process

 

The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required.

 

    The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.

    There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.

    The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks.

    If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.

 

Thanks 

co-Chair PDWG

 

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 16:27 Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele, <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Co-Chairs,

 

While I appreciate your painstaking report, could you point to my attention or educate me on any part of the CPM that gives you authority to make a decision such as rejecting or dropping a policy because it has been on the docket for awhile or you have personal opinions or concerns about it?

 

For the purpose of calling your attention to the statement, find it pasted below...



The Co-chairs are considering dropping this policy entirely because it has been around for some time without achieving consensus. It is also noticed that the authors failed to attempt to address a lot of concerns. 

   Co-chairs have spent a lot of time on this proposal (over the last 1 month) reviewing comments and responses from previous meetings and believe that the authors did not address or attempt to address most of the major issues raised in the latest version. The CPM allows us to vary the process in the best interest of the community hence we shall work with the authors of this proposal in the coming months to see if there can be a way forward on this proposal. A decision shall be made based on this before the next policy meeting to avoid wasting the limited and precious time during the policy meeting. A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process. 

 

Caleb Ogundele

 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:18 AM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

AFRINIC31 Public Policy Meeting (PPM)

(held in Luanda, Angola)

Decisions on policy proposals discussed during the meeting

 

DAY1

 

1.       Multihoming not required for ASN (Co-Chairs Decision: Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/2019-asn-001-d4#proposal

On Last Call

This proposal has reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, we declare rough consensus on this proposal. The last call for this proposal is till Monday 13 January 2020. 

The current ASN policy requires multihoming (or plan thereof) before qualifying for an ASN.

•       This proposal modifies this requirement, adding the option to “demonstrate a technical need” for the ASN.

•       Sites that do not need the global ASN can still use a private ASN per RFC1930, RFC6996.

 

 

2.       Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv6-002-d1#proposal

On Last Call

This proposal has reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, we declare rough consensus on this proposal. The last call for this proposal is next Monday 13 January 2020.

·         The proposal corrects and aligns recent changes to IPv6 PI policy with IPv6 PA policy, especially on the need for issued IPv6 PA space to be announced within 12 months of receiving it. The current need to assign a /48 to a PoP (6.5.4.2) is also removed

 

3.       Abuse Contact Policy Update (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d5

 back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal did not reach a rough consensus because of the concerns about the confusion brought by the system were not addressed. There are also voices in the community that one attribute is enough. This also remains unaddressed.

•       The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include with each resource registration a contact where network abuse from users of those resources will be reported.

•       Proposed whois DB attribute (abuse-c) – to be used to publish abuse public contact information

•       There’s also a process to ensure that abuse report must be received by the recipient, and that contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly.

 

 

4.       AFRINIC Policy Development Process Bis v5 (No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2017-gen-002-d5#proposal

 back to list for further discussion and refinement

The proposal did not reach a consensus because of concerns over the necessity and practicality of this proposal has not been addressed. The debate over the superiority of the current development process over the proposed one has not been addressed.

 

The proposal is a complete revision of the current Policy Development Process (CPM 3.0). Key highlights are:

•       Provides for different and distinct phases for a policy proposal’s cycle through the PDP - from adoption through the last call to Board ratification.

•       Clarifies the consensus process around major and minor objections 

•       Clarifies responsibilities of Chairs of the working group and their role on how to determine the presence (or lack) of consensus.

 

 

 

5.       RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space (Co-Chairs Decision Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-006-d1#proposal

On Last Call

This proposal reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, rough consensus on this proposal has been reached. The last call for this proposal is next Monday 13th Jan 2020.

The purpose of this proposal is to restrict the propagation of BGP announcements of address space not yet issued by AFRINIC. 

•       AFRINIC to create ROAs with origin AS0 (zero) for all unissued address space.

•       For space to be issued, ROAs with origin AS0 will have to be revoked, and ROAs with origin AS0 must not be visible in RPKI repositories.

 

 

 

DAY2

 

6.       Resource Transfer Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d1#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

The proposal did not reach consensus as some objections was raised such as the proposed No need basis

•       Allows for transfers of IPv4 resources (only) between AFRINIC and other regions.

•       No limit and conditions on resource size and frequency of transfers, as long as both parties mutually agree.

•       No needs assessment by AFRINIC on the recipient.

•       Legacy resources retain legacy resource status after transfer.

 

7.       M&A Resource Transfers (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-004-d1#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal has not reached a consensus because of concerns about the necessity of this proposal has not been addressed. There are voices that the current system works well and that this proposal is pointless without an Inter RIR transfer policy. These remain unaddressed. 

·         Because AFRINIC does not currently have a policy for transfers of resources as a result of M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions between companies), this proposal attempts to establish such a mechanism for such cases.

•       Only applicable to Intra-RIR cases (companies under the AFRINIC service region).

•       Replaces the current “procedure document defined by staff” as this is not optimal and falls totally outside community control.

 

 

8.       IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) ((Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv4-002-d3#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal has not reached consensus. The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and (some ASN) resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs, as well as between AFRINIC members/entities.

•       A transfer source can only receive additional resources after 24 months of the previous transfer

•       A resource can only be transferred after 12 months after issue.

•       IPv4 legacy resources lose that status after transfer.

•       Outgoing transfers cease if for 6 months, outgoing resources are more than incoming resources.

 

9.       Impact Analysis is Mandatory (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-d1#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal has not reached a consensus because of concerns about the necessity and practicality of this proposal have not been addressed. 

•       Modifies CPM 3.0 to make staff impact assessments of new proposals mandatory, along with other minor changes.

•       Introduces new timelines for submission of draft proposals

•       Requires each new draft proposal to have a staff analysis 4 weeks after it’s received

•       If AFRINIC needs more time, the justification to be provided to community

 

 

10.    Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC draft8 (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus )

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2016-gen-001-d8#proposal

This proposal has not reached consensus after many iterations spanning over 8 iterations spanning over 3 years (from May 2016). 

The proposal sets a framework for AFRINIC to conduct reviews/audits of resource utilization by members (to ensure efficient and appropriate use).

•       Audits can be random or selected (by AFRINIC) or reported (by whistle-blower).

•       Resources not complying are recovered and can be reallocated.

 

The Co-chairs are considering dropping this policy entirely because it has been around for some time without achieving consensus. It is also noticed that the authors failed to attempt to address a lot of concerns. 

   Co-chairs have spent a lot of time on this proposal (over the last 1 month) reviewing comments and responses from previous meetings and believe that the authors did not address or attempt to address most of the major issues raised in the latest version. The CPM allows us to vary the process in the best interest of the community hence we shall work with the authors of this proposal in the coming months to see if there can be a way forward on this proposal. A decision shall be made based on this before the next policy meeting to avoid wasting the limited and precious time during the policy meeting. A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process.      

 

11.    Proposal: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-002-d2#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal has not reached consensus. Concerns regarding the unclear wording about the assignment and the excessive amount of need for AFRINIC's approval have not been addressed.

•       Allows for transfers of IPv4 and ASN resources (only) between AFRINIC and other regions.

•       The recipient must demonstrate the need for the resources.

•       Legacy resources once transferred will lose that status and fall under RSA.

•       Reserved resources cannot be transferred.

 

12.    Chairs Elections Process (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)

https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-007-d1#proposal

Back to list for further discussion and refinement

This proposal has not reached consensus. Concerns on e-voting and the criteria of chair candidate have not been addressed. The policy was not supported by anyone during the Public Policy meeting

•       The proposal is an  effort to improve the process for election/selection of Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) co-chairs.

•       Addresses conflict of interest issues.

•       Restrictions for co-chairs to be from different countries.

•       Co-Chairs must represent AFRINIC members or be nominated by AFRINIC members.

•       Must have been active on rpd at afrinic.net list for at least 6 months.

•       Must present planned achievements

 

Thank You 

 Co-Chairs PDWG

 

Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

 

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd



 

Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

 

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191222/7d502689/attachment-0001.html>