Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[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
Fri May 8 13:49:19 UTC 2020


Dear Appeals Committee

I hope you are all well and keeping safe.

A kind reminder of the queries asked.

Keep safe.

Noah

On Mon, 20 Apr 2020, 17:40 Noah, <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:


> 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_-153000512984286187_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/20200508/dcc7a8ff/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list