Search RPD Archives
[rpd] APPEAL COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT - Re: appeal about last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unal
Noah
noah at neo.co.tz
Mon Apr 20 14:40:16 UTC 2020
Hi Paulos,
Thanks for your quick response. Just to clarify that I responded to you
since you sent the original email but basically my email was addressed to
the entire AC which is why I started off with "Hi Paulos and Team" though I
appreciate your personal response.
In any case, I would like to request that the AC which I have since copied
in this particular email respond in their capacity.
*./noah*
neo - network engineering and operations
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 5:28 PM Dr P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
>
> Noah,
>
> Thank you for the message personally addressed to me on AFRINIC PDP
> appeals. I would like to personally indicate and observe the following
> since this has been addressed to me personally:
>
> 1. that issues on AFRINIC PDP Appeals should be addressed <
> pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net> and not to me personally.
>
> 2. That, as I understand it, each appeal is handled by the Appeal
> Committee individually.
>
> 3. That if you, as you have indicated below, agree that this first 2020
> Appeal did not satisfy the conditions as in Section 5 of the ToR of the
> Appeal Committee, then that should surely close the case on this Appeal.
>
> 4. That the resolution of the Appeal Committee is final.
>
> These are my personal indications and observations and I do not speak here
> for the Appeals Committee.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paulos
> ======================
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
> http://www.registrar.mw
> Tel: +265-(0)-882 089 166
> Cell: +265-(0)-888-824787
> WhatsApp: +265-(0)-887386433
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2020 at 16:18, Noah wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_-2639169403255087844_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200420/bfd28fe4/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list