[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