[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 8, 2020, at 05:25 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> 

> Owen, 

> 

> Save for your inconsistency across two separate threads….


I don’t see what inconsistency you are referring to.

I stated that the objections were not critical or substantial.

I further agreed that I could understand co-chairs perception of some controversy based on the objections which I considered neither critical nor substantial.


> 

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

> 

> 

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

> 

> 

> 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”.


Actually, the particular comment that I mentioned above was repeated on the list in response to my query.

> 

> 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.”


Correct… I don’t see a problem here and that’s what I said. However, someone else had stated an objection based (somewhat) on this providing an insufficient time period.

> 

> 

> 

>> 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?


No… I think your accusation against the co-chairs is unfounded. For one thing, I’m not convinced that the co-chairs actually do oppose the proposal.

While I don’t agree with their conclusion, I cannot say that they erred in coming to that conclusion. It is possible for people to look at the same input and come to different conclusions without any error or ill intent.


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


Fact: Determining community consensus is inherently subjective.
Fact: Co-chairs are tasked with making that judgment call.
Fact: There were some objections. I felt they were adequately addressed and not substantial. Clearly the co-chairs felt differently.

The facts are that the situation is ambiguous and the co-chairs made a different judgment call than you or I would have.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200208/88a199d6/attachment.html>