Search RPD Archives
[rpd] APPEAL COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT - Re: appeal about last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unal
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Tue Apr 21 13:04:42 UTC 2020
Hi,
You have power and the mandate, as elected by the community, to make sure that the PDP and CPM is being followed *always*.
The Appeal Committee is bound to the PDP, as the rest of the community, and they are taking the freedom to discriminate authors of policy proposals against the rest of the community members.
If you believe that I’m wrong and this is not a violation of the PDP, please state so clearly and then we *all* will be free to make our own interpretations of each PDP/CPM bit which basically will mean that we don’t need it, and this is now the wild-west.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 21/4/20 14:33, "ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> escribió:
Dear Jordi,
Thank for your email and Co-chairs are responding now cos you mentioned us specifically in your email.
Unfortunately, as co-chairs, we do not have any power over the appeal committe and their decisions.
The only thing is, their decision is binding as that is the decision hence there was nothing for us to comment on.
Thanks
Co-Chair PDWG
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
Hi Noah, all,
Thanks a lot for your detailed review on this matter.
Actually, for me is clear since day 1 that the Appeal Committee can *NEVER* restrict the rights set by the CPM.
This will be the same as if the Constitution of a country declares (as they usually do) that no person can be discriminated by age, religion, sex, political or other reasons, and then a committee of the parliament of that country, decides that they want to discriminate women or people over the age of 65 to go voting unless they are accompanied by men or people below that age.
This is clearly unacceptable. In this case, co-authors, which are clearly also community members are getting *DISCRIMINATED*.
There is no way, that the Appeal Committee can change the CPM, because the CPM can only be changed by the community decision (via consensus with a policy proposal).
It is strange that since my email on 13/3, there is no response on this.
I’ve not heard anything neither from the co-chairs or the board. And I think this is a clearly sign of bad behavior, lack of transparency, and consequently illegitimate decision.
If we accept this then we will need to accept *ANY* ignorance and lack of compliance with the CPM by anyone in the community.
Our CPM is our major law, our Constitution, and there is no way right can be restricted.
I hope the board can clarify if they are accepting this, and consequently allow all the community to interpret the CPM as they wish.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 20/4/20 16:50, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:
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.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
**********************************************
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200421/1da8491f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list