[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 7, 2020, at 10:52 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> 

> Hey Owen

> 

> 

> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, 05:20 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

> 

> 

>> On Feb 6, 2020, at 06:00 , gregoire.ehoumi via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>> 

>> Hi Nishal,

>> 

>> I am glad to finally see some conversations on these topics and thanks for your contributions.

>> 

>> The RPD is indeed the appropriate forum to discuss these issues as it is directly related to the management, distribution and usage of the INRs.

>> 

>> Your reaction to the cochairs unbelievable decision on the AS0 ROAs proposal did not go unnoticed and I see you mentioning AS0 ROA as one of the solution to the problem being discussed here, as relates to continued routing of hijacked prefixes as bogons.

>> 

>> How could one understand the Co-Chairs decision about the AS0 ROA in this context without giving the impression that the rot has set in and that there seems to exist some cover-up game going on?

> 

> While I don’t entirely agree with the Co-Chairs determination on this item, I will say that there was some appearance of controversy within the community over the proposal and I think their conclusion is arguably legitimate.

> 

> Could you spell out the said controversy. I have gone through the archives and I have watched the PPM videos and dont see nothing.


There was one commenter who appeared to feel that there was insufficient time between the withdrawal of an AS0 ROA and the issuance of addresses to a registrant.

There were some other commenters who had objections that I don’t recall the details, but didn’t really seem to reflect an understanding of what an AS0 ROA for space not issued by the RIR would do or didn’t understand that these AS0 ROAs would only be issued for space that was not issued to a registrant, but was under control of AfriNIC itself. As such, I confess I didn’t try to keep a strong memory of the details of the objections as I considered them non-relevant.


> The co-chairs aren’t there to pass value judgment on the merits of the proposal. They are there to guide and moderate the discussion, help the community explore the issues, help the authors develop well written implementable policy, and ultimately to decide whether the community has come to consensus in favor of the proposed policy.

> 

> The co-chairs would do the working group some service if they came out to specifically clarify their controversial conclusion on this proposal.


Agreed. My point is that they should not express support or opposition to the proposal itself or an opinion as to whether the proposal is “a good idea” or “a gift from the bad-idea fairy”.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200207/d0cc2d42/attachment-0001.html>