Search RPD Archives
[rpd] APPEAL COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT - Re: appeal about last call decision on AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT01 "RPKI ROAs for Unal
Arnaud AMELINA
amelnaud at gmail.com
Wed Apr 29 22:02:15 UTC 2020
Hello,
The whole thing seems broken... we decided since 2017 to fix the PDP as it
became obvious that, the current PDP is no longer suitable to the new
context.
The new proposal was to move from the current 30-days before PPM
requirement to working group ownership of proposal with a more structured
way of advancing a proposal:
⁃ adoption phase
⁃ Discussion phase
⁃ Review phase
⁃ Concluding phase
A new appeal process and composition of the AC was included
As the new proposal has evolved through several versions... you may want
to consult version 2 to read about the change to the AC composition, which
was changed later, as some suggested the current AC model is good enough
All along we heard “don’t fix what is not broken”, “proposal is too
complex”, certain things are good for RIPE region and not for this
region”.....
We have seen later on, multiple other proposals to amend parts of the
current PDP. I hope this Appeal saga helps convince people of the necessity
of a new and comprehensive PDP.
We should have fixed this board appoint AC which led to ToR contradiction
with PDP
—
Arnaud (co-author of PDP-bis)
Le mar. 21 avr. 2020 à 17:13, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a
écrit :
> I have to agree that this appeal doesn't seem to have been handled and
> explained well.
> To me questions were left opened without a proper explanation from the
> Appeal Committee regarding the critical point of having treated differently
> from what it was done before and even worst if it was added or not stuff
> that is not in the PDP. I would really like to have an official position
> from the Committee about Noah's and Jordi's points, as it doesn't seem just
> a minor disagreement from the Committee's decision.
>
> Also from what was said that the Appeal Committee's decision is final,
> does that mean that even if they realize they were wrong in their analysis
> that cannot be reverted ?
>
> We are just asking for more explanation.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
> On 20/04/2020 17:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <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>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200429/b8b8cf4f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list