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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Daniel,

 

The chairs indicated in another proposal, that it is a valid objection to “consider the mailing list as part of the consensus”. I’ve asked already about that, still waiting their response.

 

I think this is the correct way (consider both the mailing list and the meeting), however our PDP doesn’t state that. So in theory is not up to the chairs to consider the mailing list inputs, even if this has been the practice for many years and the same chairs have recognized it in Luanda (see the links to the videos that I’ve sent a few days ago in a previous email).

 

However, is not a clear contradiction that the chairs use then the list then?

 

So what is the correct perspective of the chairs, what they said in one email or in the next one?

 

Note that I’m in favour of considering the list, but this should be done always, not just when it is interesting for the chairs and not when it is a valid objection to a proposal that want to make that explicit in the PDP.

 

Right now, if we follow the PDP, it is a perfectly valid concern towards an appeal for the complete meeting decision.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 22/9/20 23:47, "Daniel Yakmut via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

 

Hello Fernando,

I don't think it was only PPM points that were considered at reaching at the conclusions on Resource Transfer Policy or any other policies for that matter. In my view I could see that the Co-Chairs were able to navigate the historical backgrounds (which included PPMs and the List) of all the policies and come to some reasonable conclusions. However, some omissions may occur, but that should not be considered as deliberate.

What is also of importance here, is the fact that a single statement can be overwhelming and compelling over several others that have been repeatedly mentioned. Clearly, such have occurred with just the one mention you are referring.

So, the fact that some one person mention the matter, it means the Co-Authors did not project any personal views on saying that rough consensus was reached. Generally, the Co-authors did a fairly good job of giving us timely summary of the state of all the policies discussed at the online  PPM.

 

Simply

Daniel

On 21/09/2020 4:23 pm, Fernando Frediani wro

Hello Abdulkarim

So you are taking in consideration something that one mentioned in a single day opportunity over what has been discussed for months in the list for for a much larger number of people who contributed to it ? You are considering what has been discussed in the PPM as final and as something that has to be adjusted in the proposal because of that single day discussion ?

I am not saying by that that you should not consider or consider less what has been discussed in the PPM, but at minimum this discussion must happen also in this RPD list to find out if this is really a consensus and clearly it doesn't seem to be as there are multiple people who don't agree with it. Actually this is a *very controversial point* that may cause more issues than the historical holding of unused resources by the legacy holders may cause.

Even if you Co-Chairs consider it's good, your personal view can not be a decision factor for that to be considered rough consensus.

If this point is automatically considered rough consensus in this way, without proper discussion with others that did not have the opportunity to participate on the PPM we will certainly appeal from this decision which is dismissing many other people who may not agree and have plenty of reasons for that.

Fernando

 

From: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> 
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 7:43 AM
To: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)

 

Dear Fernando,

It was mentioned durring the PPM. Please watch the recordings.

Thanks 

Co-Chair

 

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 2:19 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

On 20/09/2020 21:04, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:


<clip> 

 

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.


I don't remember during the discussion of this proposal someone making a point for legacy resources once transferred to remain with legacy status. It doesn't make sense at all.
In all RIRs I know any legacy resources once transferred looses the legacy status and that makes a lot of sense in order to end up with a historical distortion to the system and favor resources end up on organizations who really justify for them now a days.

Can the Co-Chairs point in which part of the discussion of this proposal this claim was made in order to consider that a rough consensus ? I have searched in the RPD Archives on the content of this discussion for months and couldn't find any mention to this point.

Thanks
Fernando

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, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

 

 
_______________________________________________
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

 

Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

 



_______________________________________________
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 



**********************************************
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200923/01524fcd/attachment-0001.html>