[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting

[Arnaud AMELINA]

My comments inline,

Le dim. 22 déc. 2019 à 21:47, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :


> I agree with Fernando.

>

>

>

> I think the important point here is that authors should be cooperative

> with the community if they really want to get a proposal advancing and

> reaching consensus. Otherwise authors aren’t doing their job.

>


NOT All comments or issue raised need to be accommodated; they can be
addressed. It is always  important for the proponent and the working group
to work toward consensual resolution to issues.  Cochairs have to moderate
discussions and make sure issues are addressed and accommodated only when
required.
Cochairs  can do this when totally neutral.

The current situation of authors vs working group members should be
avoided. To just accept changes to make people HAPPY to advance proposal
is not healthy  and should also  be discouraged.

 As an example, i noticed abuse contact proposal was updated twice before
the meeting, but still got rejected. Does it means author not listening to
the community?
-----
 2nd November 2019
Version 4: AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT04
Overall simplification of the text

22nd November 2019
Version 5: AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT05
Further clarifications of the text



>

>

> As I said before, if a proposal is not updated with the inputs from the

> community, chairs don’t need to drop a proposal, but they can just not give

> the proposal time in the agenda.

>


With a good PDP and correct working group  practices, documents advance  as
they should and qualify to  be put on agenda for PPM.  They  could also
just be presented as mean to address pending issues and not  for seeking
consensus...


>

>

> 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.

>


Ouf... I find this statement very funny coming from someone who rejected
cochairs ability to request staff analysis when needed  and  argued that
staff should provide staff analysis for any changes.

Time will come for us to be a bit more coherent



>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

--
Arnaud


>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 22/12/19 20:54, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, 16:37 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Some times a proposal can be modified to address objections to certain

> portions. Some times a proposal’s core intent just isn’t compatible with

>

> the will of [some significant fraction] of the community. In this latter

> case, the proposal should be dropped after reasonable debate. Unfortunately,

>

> authors wish to substitute their opinion for the collective wisdom of the

> community and continue to push for this proposal against all objections.

>

>

>

> Hold on there !

>

> I do not support this proposal specifically,  but calling certain

> objections "a wisdom of the community" isn't the most appropriate term to

> use in my view.

>

> Sometimes there are good points raised in nearly equal quality or

> arguments for both sides and in these cases it is simply impossible to

> reach consensus.

>

> In such cases I wouldn't call one of the sides of collective wisdom really.

>

>

>

> Fernando

>

>

>

> *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.

>

>  It strange that Co-chairs spent so much time on this proposal, and was

> not possible to produce the list of issues not addressed  before or at the

> PPM to help the discussions.

>

>

>

> If nothing else, the following unaddressed issue pretty well covers the

> entire problem:

>

>

>

> This proposal is an attack vector which allows individuals to weaponize

> AfriNIC against organizations, providing a disproportionate effect on

> larger organizations with very little cost or repercussion to the potential

> attacker.

>

>

>

> It is unlikely that this issue can be addressed in any proposal meeting

> authors’ clear intent and authors have repeatedly ignored this issue in

> their multiple updates to the proposal.

>

>

>

> There are other objections which remain, but this is the one I believe is

> least likely to ever be sufficiently addressed.

>

>

>

> I am also glad to see the expression "major issues" used by Co-chairs

> while we were told there no such thing as suggested in PDP-bis. Can we have

> your definition of "major objection”

>

>

>

> Personally, I believe the co-chairs use of that term is in error as the

> term remains undefined.

>

>

>

> The terms which should (IMHO) be considered are substantive and sustained

> objections. (sustained as in continuing, not as in the ruling of a judge

> over an objection).

>

>

>

> The above core objection is both substantive (in that it strikes at the

> heart of the proposal and has been expressed by multiple members of the

> community representing  several organizations.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> There must be a way forward  on this proposal  the 8 iterations during the

> 3 years matured  the proposal well enough  as you can see in the revision

> history.

>

> It is important to keep in mind that all objections must addressed, but

> not all can acommodated

>

>

>

> Why does there have to be a way forward? I would argue that after 8

> iterations in 3 years, the fact that the proposal still cannot achieve

> anything resembling consensus is evidence that the proposal is

> fundamentally incompatible with the desires fo the community and it is time

> to give up on int.

>

>

>

> It is also important to keep in mind that no proposal has a right to

> consensus. In most regions, something approximating 50% of all proposals

> fail to achieve consensus and end up abandoned. The long lived failure of

> this proposal is a rare example of a proposal which has failed and yet

> remains a focus of the community.

>

>

>

> 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.

>

> There are ways of better utilization  the precious  time during PPM:

> reduce the DDoS  on the PDP  with the numerous last minute  proposals,

> reduce number of competite proposals, moderate and encourage discussions on

> proposals, keep issue list and  drive discussions to closure.

>

>

>

> Save the last one, all of your suggestions would involve limiting free

> speech and disenfranchising proposal authors.

>

>

>

> I agree that having the co-chairs track the open issues with each proposal

> and driving discussions towards closure would be useful.

>

> However, closure does NOT necessarily mean consensus. It might mean a

> determination that a given policy has little or no chance of achieving

> consensus.

>

>

>

> Currently, the PDP provides no mechanism for the co-chairs to address this

> problem. I believe that an ability to abandon proposals which have been to

> at least two meetings without achieving consensus should be added to the

> PDP.

>

>

>

> A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary

> the process.

>

>  We shall be grateful if you could vary the process  using section 3.6 of

> the CPM, as you will arrange for the proposal  to be fast tracked and

> adopted  online before being presented at the next PPM.

>

>

>

> How can this occur… The proposal has nothing at all resembling consensus.

> Multiple objections remain, including the above objection which is

> fundamentally incompatible with the authors intent.

>

>

>

> Varying the process is one thing. Abandoning it altogether in favor of

> bypassing the need for consensus would be outrageous.

>

>

>

> Owen

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>

> **********************************************

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20191224/0a137ff5/attachment-0001.html>