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
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