[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"

[Noah]

Hi Paulos and Team,

I hope that you are all keeping safe insight of the on-going challenging
times.

I did observe the saga on the last appeal against co-chairs decision of no
consensus on the AS0 ROA proposal and I went back to do some readings
including the PDP section on appeals, the appeal committee ToR,  previous
appeal, appeal committee decision on the previous appeal, the last appeal
and the appeal committee decision. All this can be seen at the link
https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals

I also noted the requirements set in the ToR  that an appeal must be
supported by three people and the support must be sent via Email in a
certain format.

I checked the composition of the appeal filed in 2018. It says the
following:   [ The complainants, Mr. Owen Delong, Mr. Sander Stefan, Mr.
Mark Elkins, Mr. Andrew Alston and Mr. Saul Stein, all clearly indicated on
the mailing lists in good faith, a belief that the declaration of consensus
was in error – this fulfills section 5.1.b of the appeal process. ]

There are no mails from the folks mentioned above that were attached to the
appeal. The appeal was accepted and the  appeal committee deliberated on
it. The decision says as below:

[ III. Receipt of the “Appeal against the declared consensus of
AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07” Softlanding-bis policy proposal The Committee
received an “Appeal against the declared consensus of AFPUB-
2016-V4-001-DRAFT07” Softlanding-bis policy proposal which is  published as
required by the ToR at the following URL:
https://www.afrinic.net/en/community/working-groups/policy-appeal/appeals
The Committee  reviewed and confirmed that the Appeal filed is  in
accordance to Section 5 of the ToR of the Appeal Committee. ]


Now, the last appeal filed started with  " We are appealing against the
declaration" and  stated that;

[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 ]

The appeal was rejected with the motive below ;

[ V. Final assessment of the Appeal Committee on the Appeal  According to
the PDWG Appeal Committee Terms of Reference  (
https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#tor) section 5.2(d), the appeal
has not met the requirements for filing. “The complaint must be supported
by three (3)  persons who have participated in the discussions relating to
the matter under appeal. 8 (That is, three (3) persons other than the
complainant.) 9 Said support must be expressed by an email message from
each of the supporters to the Appeal  committee. Each of these email
messages must include a statement that the individual participated in
discussions attempting to resolve the dispute and that those discussions
failed to resolve the dispute.”   VI. Conclusion  The Committee resolves
that the filed appeal is not valid. ]


Now I do have a few questions that came into mind:

1.  Why such differences in the treatment of appeals?

2. If the AC erred for their 2018's decision and didn't this set
precedence ?   It is noted that three members who served in the  2018 AC
are serving in 2020 AC as well.

3. On which ground is the AC really acting?     Refusing to follow the
conflict resolution section of the PDP as required in Section 4 (working
methods) of the ToR and instead enforcing  requirements in section 5
(filling an appeal) of the same ToR?

[ 4.6. The committee shall ensure that any appeal received is in line with
the requirements of the Conflict Resolution section of the AFRINIC Policy
Development 3 Process. ]

Seems to me that the entire  appeal process looks ambiguous and must be
clarified  as a matter of urgency.

*./noah*
neo - network engineering and operations


On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 7:36 PM Dr P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:


> 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200420/41657a3a/attachment-0001.html>