[rpd] APPEAL COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT - Re: appeal about last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unal

[Noah]

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-0001.html>