[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 23, 2019, at 03:42 , Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Dear Owen,

> 

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


Well… PDP-BIS has its own share of flaws and is (IMHO) worse than the current PDP.

However, I have now submitted (just a few minutes ago) a proposal which addresses this particular issue with the PDP by making a very small amendment to one section of the PDP.


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


I disagree. I think that targeted changes which solve specific problems are a better mechanism because they allow us to come to consensus around a focused issue more easily.

Grandiose holistic changes are complex and often create greater opposition because one subgroup will disagree with the approach in one area while another group will disagree with the approach in a different area but prefer the approach opposed by the first group in the first area.

There are times when a holistic overhaul may be necessary, but in my experience (more than a dozen years now) policy development is far more likely to succeed, especially in a divided community, when the proposals are small, easily understood, and attack a single specific problem with relatively minimalistic changes to the CPM.

Owen


> 

> 

> 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 <mailto: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 A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> list for at least 6 months.

>>> •       Must present planned achievements

>>>  

>>> Thank You 

>>> 

>>>  Co-Chairs PDWG

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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>

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> 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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/a1672c2a/attachment-0001.html>