[rpd] APPEAL COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT - Re: appeal about last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"

[Dr P Nyirenda]

PDWG,

I would like to advise that the AFRINIC PDWG Appeal Committee has finalised processing of this submission by Jordi Palet Martinez on 12 Feb 2020 concerning co-chair last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 as copied here below.  

The Appeal Committee has produced its final report including minutes of its discussions and these are all available at: https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals

This closes all issues on this submission made for appeal.

Regards,

Paulos
======================================
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
Malawi SDNP PC: http://www.sdnp.org.mw
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw
Chair: MISPA http://www.mispa.org.mw
Chair: AFRINIC Appeal Committee

On 12 Feb 2020 at 21:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

From:	JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
To:	<pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net>, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject:	[rpd] appeal about last call decision on 
		AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for 
		Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space"
Date sent:	Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:04:25 +0100
Send reply to:	JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>


> Dear Appeal Committee, 

> 

> We are appealing against the declaration of no-consensus made by the

> PDWG co-chairs on 29th of January

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010326.html), after the

> previous declaration of consensus in the last PPM, indicating "some

> critical objections", following CPM 3.5.2. 

> 

> There was not an explicit indication of what are those "critical

> objections", and instead, the co-authors, and other community members

> have addressed all them. 

> 

> It is also noticeable that those objections are not "critical" and

> they were raised already during the PPM and consensus was declared. It

> is also interesting that people from the community, which are

> recognized experts, and was opposing to every other policy proposal

> during the PPM said "this is a good one" (speaking from top of my

> head, while writing this appeal, so maybe the wording is not precise). 

> 

> In fact, those objections could be applied to any policy proposal, as

> they are related to "human errors, implementation, etc.", which will

> mean that reverting this consensus decision in this proposal, will

> make clearly vulnerable the complete PDP because the same arguments

> can be repeated for any other proposal, and the implementation is out

> of the scope of a policy proposal, unless the proposal enters in those

> details or the staff has already provided any warning about concrete

> issues during the proposal presentation, which was not the case. 

> 

> In fact, this proposal, using the same text, has reached consensus in

> APNIC, ratified by the board, and it is being implemented, so if the

> APNIC staff has not provided non-resolvable implementations issues, it

> is difficult to believe that they may happen in AFRINIC (or any other

> RIR). 

> 

> Furthermore, we believe that the explanations provided during the last

> call to every objection were successfully refuted, not just by

> co-authors, but also by other member of the community, as already

> mention before, and none of them suggested that any change in the

> proposal is required. As a consequence, our understanding is that

> those objections are not sustained and understanding the meaning of

> rough consensus and last call, as per RFC7282, which all the RIR PDPs

> are based upon. 

> 

> There is also a generic and non-justified objection, repeated several

> times, regarding the miss-usage of the RPKI by governments, which is

> not the case, and it is not something that could be done by means of

> this proposal, but instead, enacting government control over the RIRs.

> It seems to indicate that the authors of those objections don't have a

> complete or precise view or knowledge about the RIRs and even less

> about RPKI and the related RFCs. 

> 

> The authors requested the objectors to justify that, and answers were

> not provided, just repetitions of the same objection. It is clear that

> neither for the consensus declaration in the mailing list or PPM and

> even less in the last call, a non-clearly-justified objection can be

> taken in consideration to reverse the consensus decision. 

> 

> That original co-chairs email was not providing a rational for that

> decision, and instead it suggested that more discussion was needed,

> but it was no clear, if they were extending the last call (CPM 3.4.3),

> and after insisting today, they send a reconfirmation

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010391.html) or that

> decision. 

> 

> It should be noted that we have asked the chairs in several occasions

> to reconsider their decision, following CPM 3.5.1

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010327.html,

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010350.html,

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010377.html,

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010380.html,

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010383.html), and no

> further explanation of the "critical objections" and a clear rational

> for defining the critical objections and if the responses from authors

> and community addressed them, as we believe clearly is the case, has

> been provided. 

> 

> We have replied again to the co-chairs response

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/010392.html), which

> hopefully can also help the Appeal Committee to declare that the last

> call has succeeded and consequently the consensus decision needs to be

> sustained and the proposal needs to be sent to the board for

> ratification, following the PDP. 

> 

> The authors are also convinced, according to the discussion in the

> list, that other community members are supporting this appeal, even if

> this is not needed according to CPM 3.5.1. 

> 

> We remain at your dispossal for further clarifications which may help

> to resolve this appeal as soon as possible. 

> 

> Thanks in avance for your work!

> 

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>  

>  

> 

> 

> 

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

> 

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged

> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive

> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty

> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of

> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is

> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you

> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,

> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if

> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be

> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original

> sender to inform about this communication and delete it. 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

> 

> -- 

> This message has been scanned for viruses and

> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

> believed to be clean.



----------------------------------------------------------
Malawi SDNP Webmail: http://www.sdnp.org.mw
Access your Malawi SDNP e-mail from anywhere in the world.
----------------------------------------------------------