[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Noah]

Owen,

Save for your inconsistency across two separate threads....

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020, 02:10 Owen DeLong, <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> 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> wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> On Feb 6, 2020, at 06:00 , gregoire.ehoumi via RPD <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.

>



I can now see some consistency again from you on the AS0 ROA topic.

Your current attempt to show the so-called controversy has turned to a
confirmation of your 1st response to the cochairs last call conclusion,
from which I quote below what was your query to cochairs.....

<quote>
I did not see any legitimate or critical objections. If there is something
I missed, please enumerate it (them) for the edification of the list.
</quote>

Instead of waiting for response to your legitimate and strong query, you
tried desperately to find some “controversial points”.

Let us see how the 1st point you make above fit in and I will quote you
again below:

<quote>
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.
</quote>

The policy proposals states below:

"The process for ROA validity periods and release of ROAs before
assignment/allocation by AFRINIC is left for AFRINIC staff to define in
internal procedures."




> 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”.

>


For co-chairs not listing the not addressed “critical objections”and not
doing so since their decision and the discussions which follow, wouldn't
you agree that  they just expressed  their “opposition “ to the proposal,
instead of moderating the working group discussion to a clear decision?

Please let the facts overweight beliefs and other personal consideration
and make our collective intelligence works for this community.



> Owen

>


Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200208/da948796/attachment.html>