Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)
Blaise Fyama
bfyama at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 16:02:20 UTC 2020
Chers co-chairs,
Sans être virulents à votre égard j'ai juste deux remarques à faire d'abord:
1. L'aspect multilinguiste devrait être respecté dans la prise en compte de
vos décisions, et je n'en ai pas le sentiment, ce qui implique que pour
accompagner solidement vos conclusions et vos inférences, un tableau
transparent regroupant sommairement les réactions de chaque membre
politique après politique serait le bienvenu car il permettrait à tout le
monde d'avoir une vue claire et optimale de vos décisions.
Étant un académique de carrière, je constate que sur 10 politiques
seulement 2 sont adoptées ou en voie de l'être ce qui laisse sous-entendre
que les 8 autres politiques, qui pourtant résultent de grands efforts,
donnent un sentiment d'échec à leurs auteurs. Pourriez-vous écouter un peu
plus leurs auteurs?
Je reconnais par exemple que Jordi a longuement interagis et échangé avec
plusieurs d'entre nous sa proposition mériterait d'évoluer.
2. Lorsqu'une remarque techniquement et valablement soutenue vous est
adressée pourriez-vous aussi donner des explications
proportionnellement longues? Vos réponses courtes et laconiques laissent un
sentiment de manque de considération de ce qui vous est adressé par les
membres. Sinon vous risquez d'inspirer à leur tour les membres du PDWG que
nous sommes à concevoir des politiques qui limitent votre propre rôle.
La note positive dans tout ça est que les 2 politiques à savoir les "Les
prérogatives du conseil" et "Politique de transfert des ressources" au vu
des longues discussions pendant des mois ont quand même fait du chemin. Je
note seulement que nous devons rester alerte pour "Les prérogatives du
conseil" afin de ne pas affaiblir non plus le conseil qui devrait demeurer
un organe de prise des décisions, pour plus d'efficience et d'efficacité
dans le fonctionnement de la communauté.
J'en félicite les auteurs, surtout Taiwo avec qui j'ai eu l'opportunité
d'échanger lors de l'avant-dernier sommet en Angola.
Pour finir chers co-chairs efforcez-vous d'être multilingues pour nous
écrire en Français comme nous aussi on vous écrit parfois en Anglais.
Cordialement,
Blaise.
Blaise FYAMA
Msc, PhD.
Professeur Associé
Secrétaire Général Académique Honoraire/UL
Doyen de la Faculté des Sciences Informatiques/UPL
Doyen a.i de la Faculté Polytechnique/UPL
Chef de Département Génie Electrique/ESI-UNILU
Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU
Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK
Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET
Tel: +243995579515
Numéro O.N.I.CIV: 00460
MSc, PhD.
Associate Professor
Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL
Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL
Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL
Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU
IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU
IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK
Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET
Phone: +243995579515
O.N.I.CIV number: 00460
Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 à 02:06, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> a écrit :
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list