[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Hi Taiwoo,

Thanks for agreeing that *co-chairs* made  *unilateral* *decision* on which
proposal moves forward and at  which conditions, usurping clearly the WG’s
power.

Thanks

Salut Taiwoo,
Merci d’avoir démontrer que les co-présidents (co-modérateurs) aient pris
une *décision* *unilatérale* sur la proposition qui a été poussée en avant
vers le "last-Call" et à quelles conditions, usurpant clairement le pouvoir
du Groupe de Travail (GT).

Merci

--
Arnaud

Le mer. 23 sept. 2020 à 06:56, Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>
a écrit :


> Dear all,

> I understand that a decision making process is difficult and can not

> satisfy all.

>

> I have been following the list closely on ALL policy discussions and i can

> clearly state that 90% (if not all) points discussed previously on the

> mailing list were discussed in meeting, therefore it is safe to say the

> points on the mailing list were considered.

>

> I personally think the co-chairs had an herculean task of gathering and

> discussing all points raised by the community and presenting them in such a

> short period of time.  Let us start by applauding their good job. In

> previous meetings, consensus or no consensus was declared without reason,

> but this time, the cochairs took it a step further to present and analyse

> the points raised.

>

> There were 3 policies discussing transfer of resources. The co-chairs

> decided to stop the rat race and allow the community focus on one of these

> policies so that we can all achieve a common goal ( which is development of

> the AFrican region in the internet community). I think this bold move

> should be applauded. I will like to clearly state that my belief is that

> all community members are working towards a better region and not personal

> gain, therefore i will encourage us all to focus on a way forward.

> @gregorie’s points clearly states the issues raised to be corrected on the

> “Resource transfer policy” and i will like to assure the community that

> these changes are being effected.

> Please all, let us focus on community development and progress and stop

> unnecessary tongue lashing.

>

> Kind regards

>

> Taiwo from Africa

>

>

>

>

> On 23 Sep 2020, at 06:34, Ibeanusi Elvis <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> 

> Dear community,

>

> I would say that we should all learn to appreciate the excessive work and

> effort being invested by the Chairs and the PDWG on maintaining a

> functional and effective operational environment. On the other hand, as

> earlier pointed out, it is better to accept the decisions outlined by the

> co-chairs on behalf of the community and the PDWG in good faith and not

> cherry pick, demonize or even become antagonistic towards them. After an in

> depth review of all the policies, putting into consideration and

> deliberation the issues brought up by the community through the RDP

> platform and during the AFRINIC Internet Summit Online 2020, either in the

> form of comments or questions, and never forget, the AFRINIC Policy Impact

> assessment. I believe that the co-chairs had all the necessary tools and

> facts to come to the conclusion they arrived at, unbiased.

>

> @Fernando, regarding your comment " "Cochairs appear to be deciding and

> injecting new issues not previously mentioned in working group. Not

> following due process of hearing authors and the hurry to decide for

> working group is unacceptable. The co chairs report must rather provide an

> open issues list of outstanding issues for working group to deliberate on.

> There had been no attempt by co chairs to gauge consensus throughout the

> meeting. "

>

> I concur that this is very unfair and unjust, likewise disapproving of the

> immense work that the co-chairs and the PDWG consistently put into to

> arrive at a comprehensive decision. They are working for the best of the

> community and the AFRINIC organization in general but instead you are

> accusing them of not following "Due Process" and making "Hasty and

> Unacceptable Decisions". Finally, let's try and appreciate their work

> rather than devaluing their time and effort.

>

> Best regards,

> Ibeanusi Elvis .C.

>

>

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 6:58 AM lucilla fornaro <

> lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Hello everyone,

>>

>>

>> The chairs do not get appreciated enough for the massive workload of

>> voluntary job that they are doing for the community. They obviously want to

>> give the community enough time to thoughtfully discuss the matters on hand,

>> since they merely announced the starting date and didn’t even announce when

>> it ends, and that is a very good thing. But still, there you are, accusing

>> them of violation. Such a shame.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Lucilla

>>

>> ------------------------------

>> *Da:* ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

>> *Inviato:* Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:44:14 AM

>> *A:* Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>

>> *Cc:* rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> *Oggetto:* Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed

>> during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)

>>

>>  Dear Friend Noah,

>> Thanks to Gaby she already help out.

>> I can also add that the Last call is for two weeks. If we see the need we

>> can extend it.

>> Co-Chair PDWG.

>>

>>

>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 2:09 PM Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

>>

>> Attention WG,

>>

>> I have also noted more violations of the PDP by Co-Chairs  from the last

>> meeting.

>>

>> Section 3.4.3 of pdp says: “*The Last Call period shall be at least two

>> weeks*."

>>

>> The Co-Chairs did not follow this and did not specify the duration of the

>> last call for the proposals going to the last call.

>>

>> Furthermore, which documents are to be discussed at this unspecified last

>> call?

>>

>> Why this rush?  This abuse of the PDP must stop.

>>

>> *./noah*

>> neo - network engineering and operations

>>

>>

>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 7:39 PM Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> wrote:

>>

>> Dear Co-chairs and WG

>>

>> During the AFRINIC-32 PPM which was held last week, the proceedings and

>> decisions made by cochairs, raised many concerns. Below are some of them.

>> The video of the meeting is publicly available.

>>

>>

>>

>> *Concern-1  objections management ————*

>> cochairs chose some objections raised and even not-raised, did not say

>> why comments and explanations provided by authors and the participants on

>> the raised and discussed issues were unsatisfactory.

>>

>> Few examples

>>

>> ⁃ Abuse contact proposal

>>

>> The valid and unresolved objections according to co-chairs decisions were:

>> • Definition of abuse

>> • GDPR compliance

>> • Impact of legacy resources

>>

>>

>> ⁃ RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Spaces

>>

>> The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:

>> • AS0 ROA validity

>> • Certain fear in the community that this proposal may help staff reclaim

>> resources if members failed to pay membership fees.

>> • Lack of a certain mitigation provision APNIC  has in their policy

>>

>> -WG guidelines and procedures

>>

>> The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:

>>

>> • the proposed appointment of cochairs  by consensus will create more

>> problems for this community.

>> • Cochairs should not have hands in consensus

>> • also Board interference.

>>

>> ⁃ Inter-RIR transfer proposals

>>

>> On the 3 proposals being discussed

>>

>> Cochairs decided that :

>> • one is far from reaching consensus as incompatible with ARIN as per

>> staff.

>> • The other 2 are closer

>>

>>

>>

>> * Concern-2 fairness in the proceeding ——————————————————*

>> • When rendering their decisions and contrary to what was announced,

>> Cochairs did not question all authors of transfer policy proposals showing

>> bias

>>

>> • Staff’s demand to the WG  to allow them to request official

>> compatibility analysis on each of the proposals from other RIRs was denied

>>

>> • Authors were not even given chance to respond to the point with ARIN

>>

>>

>>

>> *Concern-3 unilateral decisions by cochairs ————————————————————*

>> • cochairs decided that Afrinic service region need an inter-RIR transfer

>> policy as matter as urgency  and can’t wait anymore

>>

>> • Cochairs decided that among the 3 proposals, the one which aims to

>> establish an efficient and business-friendly mechanism to allow a number of

>> resources to be transferred from/to other regions, should be pushed forward

>>

>> • Cochairs refused to consider the issues and the implementation

>> challenges  raised by the staff impact assessment on proposal

>>

>> • Cochairs decided on which amendments should be made to the selected

>> proposal  for it to move forward.

>>

>> 1- Add 12 months delay for a source to be eligible to receive allocation

>> from AFRINIC

>>

>> 2- Remove clause for legacy status after transfer

>>

>> 3-Fix clarity on notifications to the other RIRs after the transfer

>>

>> It is obvious that 1) contradicts both problem statement and solution of

>> the proposal preferred by cochairs.

>>

>> Cochairs appear to be deciding and injecting new issues not previously

>> mentioned in working group. Not following due process of hearing authors

>> and the hurry to decide for working group is unacceptable. The cochairs

>> report must rather provide an open issues list of outstanding issues for

>> working group to deliberate on. There had been no attempt by cochairs to

>> gauge consensus throughout the meeting.

>>

>> In the view of all these violations of the PDP, I urge you to reconsider

>> all decisions made during the last PPM and give chance to the WG to

>> appropriately address the open issues and come to the best conclusions for

>> the region.

>>

>> --

>> Gregoire Ehoumi ( on behalf of the authors of WG guidelines and

>> procedures and AFRINIC Number Ressources transfer proposals)

>>

>>

>> -------- Original message --------

>> From: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

>> Date: 2020-09-20 8:06 p.m. (GMT-05:00)

>> To: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> Subject: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during

>> the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)

>>

>>

>> Dear PDWG Members,

>>

>>  Please find below a summary for each of the proposal discussed during

>> the just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32

>>

>> 1.       Simple PDP Update

>>

>> This policy defines consensus. It also proposes that a policy discussed

>> at the PPM does not need to come back for another PPM for the Co-chairs to

>> arrive at a decision. This can help in streamlining the work during the PPM

>> and encourages people to use the mailing list.

>>

>> There were lots of irrelevant objections on the mailing list such as

>> someone registering many emails. We believe that this does not matter

>> because rough consensus is not about numbers but quality objections.

>>

>> However, there is strong opposition to this policy based on the

>> following:

>>

>> a.                   Oppose the policy because of the way the consensus

>> is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus be reached through a

>> balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM. This endangers fair

>> consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based on experience, it is

>> during the PPM that most community members focus on policies.

>>

>> b.                  Issues around how the chairs should drop proposals.

>>

>> c.                   Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly believe

>> that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some believes it should

>> not.

>>

>> d.                  Issues around having more than 1 PPM per year and

>> Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all volunteers and it’s a

>> night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer and more chances

>> for burnouts

>>

>> e.                  Some members of the Community thinks only burning or

>> polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.

>>

>> Chairs Decision:   No Consensus

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> 2.       PDP Working Group

>>

>> This proposal aims at allowing most of the decisions including chair

>> elections to be determined via consensus.  This can be reasonable when the

>> community has the same goal. However, there were a number of objections to

>> it. These are:

>>

>> a.                   Entrusting the WG to make their decisions by

>> consensus and the appointment of their co-chairs by consensus do not make

>> sense and is only utopic.

>>

>> b.                  People are not policy proposals, and thus choosing

>> by consensus is splitting hairs with the election process we already have.

>> Save the consensus for the proposals, and the election for people.

>>

>> c.                   Consensus may even take months, and this can’t fly

>> when we want to put people in the vacant roles.

>>

>> d.                  Co-chairs should not have a hand in the consensus,

>> but only sit back and let the community decide for themselves.

>> Additionally, the consensus process is not feasible with a deadline.

>>

>> e.                  Focus on polishing the current electoral process

>> instead of complicating other untested forms of “election”.

>>

>> f.                    The current status quo’s election should be the

>> only option in choosing for the roles, and not through less transparent

>> means.

>>

>> g.                   Board would be interfering too much on issues that

>> deal with PDP

>>

>> Chairs Decision:    No Consensus

>>

>>

>>

>> 3.       Chairs Election Process

>>

>> This proposal aims at introducing an online voting system for the

>> Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to this proposal.

>>

>> a.                   This policy reduces participation. Equal

>> representation is violated because the board has unprecedented power.

>>

>> b.                  There is also not enough information on the

>> logistics of the vote (e-voting).

>>

>> c.                   There is a contradiction on when the term ends

>> during the meeting. “The term ends during the first PPM corresponding to

>> the end of the term for which they were appointed” is not clear enough, and

>> “A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the PPM and no

>> later than the last day of the PPM as determined by mutual agreement of the

>> current Chair and the new Chair” contradicts each other.

>>

>> d.                  Gender restriction on 3.3.1.3 , some community

>> members argue it is impractical and maybe even unfair if we force both

>> chairs to have different genders.

>>

>> e.                  Issues around which voter's register should be

>> adopted

>>

>> Chairs Decision: No Consensus

>>

>>

>>

>> 4.       Board Prerogatives

>>

>> This proposal aims at clarifying how the board and the PDWG  works.

>> However, there were a few oppositions to this proposal except for a

>> specific section.

>>

>> a.                   It seems like a piecemeal approach to dealing with

>> issues.

>>

>> b.                  Opposition to the section below

>>

>> *“As an exception of the preceding paragraph, in the absence of elections

>> processes for aspects related to the PDP (co-chairs, appeal committee),

>> those aspects will be still handled by the board in consultation with the

>> community. However, this is also a temporary measure and also specific

>> draft policy proposals should be introduced for that*”. The authors

>> agreed to remove the above section hence

>>

>> Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section is removed

>>

>>

>>

>> 5.       Policy Compliance Dashboard

>>

>> The policy proposal seeks to provide a framework or a policy compliance

>> dashboard be developed by AFRINIC and incorporated in myAFRINIC (and future

>> member’s communication platforms).  It will allow a periodic review of the

>> policy compliance status of each member. It will also enable members to

>> receive automated notifications for any issue. Staff will receive repeated

>> warnings of lack of compliance or severe violations enshrined in the CPM.

>> However, there are several oppositions to this proposal, such as:

>>

>> a.                   This policy seems to be redundant of the status quo

>> as violations are already checked and processed by the human staff.

>>

>> b.                  There is already an existing system of guidelines on

>> keeping track of the violations of members.

>>

>> c.                   The policy is not binding and does not enforce

>> members actually to follow the rules and not violate policies.

>>

>> d.                  Ignorance could be a convenient excuse for

>> violations because one could claim that they never got notified about their

>> violations.

>>

>> e.                  There is no comprehensive system on how the board

>> should take proper actions once members violate policies, nor does it give

>> guidelines based on the severity of the violations.

>>

>> f.                    This policy takes away resources that could be

>> used for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something existing in the

>> system.

>>

>> g.                   It an administrative  process, and this should be

>> left to staff

>>

>> Chairs Decision:  NO rough Consensus

>>

>>

>>

>> 6.       Abuse Contact Update

>>

>> The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each resource

>> registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those resources

>> will be reported.  The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c) to be used to

>> publish abuse public contact information. There’s also a process to ensure

>> that the recipient must receive abuse report and that contacts are

>> validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some opposition to the

>> proposal there are:

>>

>> a.                   Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not

>> conclusive  (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)

>>

>> b.                  The proposal doesn’t state what will be the

>> consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating the abuse

>> contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact

>>

>> c.                   Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning

>> the whois database

>>

>> d.                  No proper definition of the term Abuse

>>

>> e.                  To force members to reply to their abuse email is

>> not in the scope of AFRINIC.

>>

>> Chairs Decision: No rough consensus

>>

>>

>>

>> 7.       RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space

>>

>> The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all unallocated and

>> unassigned address space under its control. This will enable networks

>> performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all the bogon

>> announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC. However, there are

>> many oppositions such as:

>>

>> a.                   Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will

>> lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table.

>>

>> b.                  Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new

>> allocation doesn’t match.

>>

>> c.                   Other RIRs don’t have a similar the policy

>> therefore, it can not be effective

>>

>> d.                  This will become a uniform policy if it is not

>> globally implemented, which causes additional stress.

>>

>> e.                  Validity period:   if members decide to implement

>> it, is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too long?

>>

>> f.                    How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to

>> revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?

>>

>> g.                   What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA

>> for an address in error?

>>

>> h.                  It also might affect the neighbours and involves

>> monitoring of unallocated spaces.

>>

>> i.                     Possibility of it being used against a member who

>> is yet to pay dues.

>>

>> Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as

>>

>> a)                  The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be limited

>> to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a legacy

>> allocation.

>>

>> b)                  AFRINIC should require the explicit consent of the

>> previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed, returned, etc,

>> space.

>>

>> c)                   Any ROAs issued under this policy should be issued

>> and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a relying party

>> to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).

>>

>> d)                  The proposal should include the clause “as used in

>> APNIC as to dues not paid on time.”

>>

>> Chairs Decision: No consensus

>>

>>

>>

>> 8.       IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)

>>

>> The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and (some ASN)

>> resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between AFRINIC

>> members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the source and recipient

>> based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR transfers will be

>> suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming

>> ones for six consecutive months. However, there are oppositions to it

>>

>> a.                   ASN Transfer is not necessary

>>

>> b.                  Issue of board inferring: no board in all of the

>> five RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or allocating IP

>> address. It is not the board's responsibility.

>>

>> c.                   Suspending clause with no reinstalling clause. This

>> mainly makes the policy potentially invalid.

>>

>> Chairs Decision: No consensus.

>>

>>

>>

>> 9.       AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer

>>

>> a.                   Not realistic for one-way inter RIR resource

>> transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would never happen as only

>> global resources can come in and go out

>>

>> b.                  It would be difficult for the recipient to follow

>> the rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.

>>

>> c.                   No need for ASN transfer. If one is moving regions

>> and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can request and receive from

>> the local RIRs

>>

>> d.                  Additional attributes create none-operational

>> complexity in the whois database.

>>

>> Chairs Decision: No consensus.

>>

>>

>>

>> 10.   Resource Transfer Policy

>>

>> This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it has the

>> following opposition

>>

>> a.                   Issues with Legacy holder transfer is potentially

>> considered none-reciprocal by ARIN

>>

>> b.                  Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without the

>> time limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.

>>

>> Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3

>> competing proposals. However because of the community’s desire and clear

>> expression for the  need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the Co-chairs,

>> believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on a proposal

>> rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly expressed at the

>> AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the authors of

>> this proposal make the following amendments:

>>

>> ·         5.7.3.2  Source entities are not eligible to receive further

>> IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months period after the

>> transfer.

>>

>> ·         5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be regarded

>> as legacy resources.

>>

>> Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the decisions is

>> Rough Consensus is achieved

>>

>>

>>

>> Based on the above, The updated version of the follow proposal which

>> achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG website

>>

>> *1.       **Board Prerogatives *

>>

>> *2.       **Resource Transfer Policy*

>>

>> Therefore, these two policies are now on last call.

>>

>> Co-Chair

>> PDWG

>>

>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin

>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal

>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal

>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>>

>> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin

>> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal

>> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal

>> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://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/20200923/8b9a9b18/attachment-0001.html>