[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

On 13/02/2020 08:55, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 

> 

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

>> <mailto: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.


YES!
Exactly what I was trying to say in the email I'm just drafting. (and
got distracted)


> 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.


[me being a co-author]
Also disagreeing with the decision, also not seeing bad faith, but with
more experience, co-authors should see that some objections were vague
and not supported by facts.


Greetings,
Frank