[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 12, 2020, at 12:58 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:20 AM 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?

> 

> 

> I don’t see rot or a coverup here. I see a good faith effort to do the job as described in the PDP and bylaws.

> 

> Owen,

> 

> If memory servers, not so long ago, a group that vehemently opposed the "abuse contacts" proposal, failed to work out a consensual proposal on "review of resource usage" and is now opposing the "AS0  ROA"  by AfriNIC on unallocated/unassigned space, will have to do more than just "good faith effort" to convince this working group and the world on his seriousness about his stewardship responsibility on number resources. 


Huh?

I don’t see the group that vehemently opposed “review of resource usage” as being the same group that is now opposing “AS0 ROA”.

Nor do I see that as having any relationship to the current decision by the co-chairs on the “AS0 ROA” proposal.

I’m saying that from my perspectives, even though I disagree with their decision, I feel that the co-chairs acted in good faith in coming to that decision.


> This is especially true given the continued negative press towards AfriNIC’s disregard of her stewardship.


Who are you referring to about “his stewardship responsibility”? There are (to the beset of my knowledge) two co-chairs involved in this decision. Are you saying that you believe they both acted in bad faith? That’s a pretty serious allegation. Do you have anything to back it up?


> Are we refusing to see and confront the facts ? We seem to have a big elephant in the room….  


If there’s an elephant, I’m having trouble seeing it. The “resource review” decision which was appealed was an incorrect action by the co-chairs as determined by the appeals committee. That was a case where they declared consensus when there were multiple clear voices expressing opposition.

If you believe that the co-chairs acted incorrectly here (I do not), then you should start an appeal. However, here we have a much less clear-cut case. IMHO, the objections raised were adequately addressed. The co-chairs determined differently. It was a judgment call. Not the judgment call I would have made, but one I can understand given the fact pattern that exists.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200212/a76d5e80/attachment-0001.html>