[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during the meeting

[Nasir Faruk]

Hello Caleb,

While noting your point of order with reference citations, I still agree
with the co chairs that time management is still an issue and requires
timely intervention.

It was clear that, despite the allocated two days for Policy discussions, a
quite number of community members were truncated from speaking at the mic
on important issues, I, inclusive. This isnt good also. The reason was
time. On the other hand, is time really the issue ? The fundamental issue
lie with the inability for the current PDP process to terminate a proposal.
Since the process flow dosent solve the underlaying problems, and
therefore, encourage continuous refinements until the proposal is being
passed. In other words forcing the community to adopt the policy.

The fairness rule as quoted, would do more harm by compounding the problem
at long run where so many policies will be on the table for discussion
within the limited time space. Or next time, I shouldnt obey the chairs
once I am on the mic irrespective of the constraints?

Why should I spend my fund and time to attend a public policy meeting where
I wouldn't be able to talk due to time?

It doesn't make any sense depriving one talking on the mic or cutting the
allocated slot to 30sec on accounts of so many junky proposals that are
endlessly in circulation and consistently, failed to reach consensus.



 I, therefore, STRONGLY agree with the decisions of the chairs.


Best regards.

Nasir.



On Dec 23, 2019 12:43 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: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting
      (Sander Steffann)
   2. Re: Replying to Digest emails (Willy Manga)
   3. Unsubscribe (Chittra Seeparsad)
   4. Re: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting
      (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
   5. Re: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting
      (Komi Elitcha)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:03:55 +0100
From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during
        themeeting
Message-ID: <298199C2-E69C-40D5-B57C-0DF7A2E3D598 at steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

iH,


> If authors want to play trick with a new version, but not addressing

community inputs ? it is perfectly reasonable and I will say part of the
chairs job, not allocate time for a proposal that has been updated only
with editorial changes.

No, because then a proposal will still not expire. The chairs should not
accept an update that doesn't address (which doesn't mean accommodate) the
raised issues, period.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/3d37e1b2/attachment-0001.sig

>


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:04:39 +0400
From: Willy Manga <mangawilly at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Replying to Digest emails
Message-ID: <b3ed6ad5-a57c-fdcc-172e-0e6826b75af9 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi.

On 22/12/2019 21:35, Fernando Frediani wrote:

> Folks, could we please agree on not replying to Digest emails ?


actually it's possible to reply to digest emails without breaking the
thread. Unfortunately many people do not read the how-to which is
clearly written at the top of each digest email.

I paste it here:

"
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
"




> This is a bad pratice and breaks totally the discussion thread.

> Receiving digest emails doesn't means the same level of commitment to the

> list.


To be more specific it is mostly related to how frequently you want to
read emails from that list.
You still have the ability to reply *but* you need to edit the topic.

I use that option  for some lists where I'm more reader than 'contributer'.


P.S: I use to say that we should have a short tutorial on how to manage
emails and lists: sort emails using folders in your inbox, top/bottom
posting, plain/html text, digest or non digest, lists subscription, ...
During new-comers session ? Have a short webinar people can replay
anytime ??

It would save a lot of time for all of us IMHO


-- 
Willy Manga
@ongolaboy
https://ongola.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/82796821/attachment-0001.sig

>


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:42:05 +0400
From: Chittra Seeparsad <chittra.seeparsad at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: [rpd] Unsubscribe
Message-ID:
        <CADVY17uyfnLOxChdkRACeoT1CWxYetOAjg5Zti9erE=hjjBP3Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello

Kindly unsubscribe me from your mailing list.
Thank you

Yours Sincerely
Chittra
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/c9dcc88a/attachment-0001.html

>


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:50:31 +0100
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during
        themeeting
Message-ID: <C79A42C7-2147-416A-AD44-DBE2376571E7 at consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="UTF-8"

You're right, and same result. Not updated, no time in the agenda.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



?El 23/12/19 0:04, "Sander Steffann" <sander at steffann.nl> escribi?:

    iH,

    > If authors want to play trick with a new version, but not addressing
community inputs ? it is perfectly reasonable and I will say part of the
chairs job, not allocate time for a proposal that has been updated only
with editorial changes.

    No, because then a proposal will still not expire. The chairs should
not accept an update that doesn't address (which doesn't mean accommodate)
the raised issues, period.

    Cheers,
    Sander





**********************************************
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: 5
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:42:16 +0000
From: Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele
        <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during
        themeeting
Message-ID: <4EFF3B39-CF35-49FC-BF3F-580BD8476B5C at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear Owen,

Thanks for finally agreeing that current pdp needs an upgrade which pdp bis
tries to accomplish.

We always, better address this pdp enhancement holistically instead of
patching narrow issues.


Best,

-Komi

>

> As such, I will soon submit a proposal to amend the PDP to eliminate this

technicality and provide appropriate discretion to the co-chairs to address
such abuse of the process.

>

> Owen

>

>

>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 03:14 , Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <

muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20191223/2ac32cc5/attachment.html

>


------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of RPD Digest, Vol 159, Issue 30
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/d3f85688/attachment-0001.html>