[rpd] Afrinic Scandals, future and the PDP

[Noah]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:55 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


>

>

> 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> 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?

>>

>>

>> 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?

>


It's all in the archives no need to spelt it out.....those with memory
remember.



> 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.

>


No need too.... see
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010393.html

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.

>


We can agree to disagree......

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200213/fdef2271/attachment.html>