Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)
Arnaud AMELINA
amelnaud at gmail.com
Wed Sep 23 13:51:46 UTC 2020
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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list