[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"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Dear Paulos,

Thanks for letting us know.

I just read the document, by the way with a great surprise. Let me explain:

The Appeals Committee is saying *now* that they have a "special rule" that is contradicting the PDP which means that "the complaint must be supported by three persons other that the complainant".

This is AGAINST the PDP, which say "A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or with the PDWG. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board of Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions."

There is NO SUCH RULE in the PDP that say that co-authors are sufficient to sustain the appeal.

The terms of reference NEVER can ALTER what the PDP says.

And if that was the case, your obligation as Appeals Committee, when the Appeal has been received, is to publicly tell that if the appeals is not supported by more participants, then it must be rejected.

I'm sure that if you've said that we could have, in a matter of minutes, a handful of other community members confirming that they support the appeal.

Otherwise, having that in mind, why you even lost your time in taking such decision AGAINST the PDP?

Moreover, the terms of reference, to be VALID, must have been approved by the community as part of the PDP.

Furthermore, I'm sure that when I looked, at the time of preparing the appeal, the AFRINIC website, that section "Terms of Reference" was not there. It is evident that the AFRINIC web site in the last months is having many troubles, so that may have been the reason. I prefer not to think in something else.

So, at this point, it is your obligation to re-asses your judgment without considering a clear violation of the PDP that those terms of reference are doing.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 13/3/20 17:07, "Dr P Nyirenda" <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> escribió:

    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.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    RPD mailing list
    RPD at afrinic.net
    https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
    



**********************************************
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.