Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meetin
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 21:19:55 UTC 2020
On 25/09/2020 18:07, Anthony Ubah wrote:
> <clip>
>
>
> With respect to my policy proposal on Number resource Transfer, a
> questions was asked about legacy resources. This is relatively trivial
> to the idea of the policy in general. This can be subject to a new
> Legacy policy in its own right. However this proposal was done with
> the grand intention of gaining reciprocity with the key donor of IPv4s
> which is ARIN. The issues raised shouldn't halt this policy. Jordi
> made some valid recommendations which can be considered.
It is definitively not. Letting them remain considered legacy is a
*major issue* that only benefit a few actors who gain financially with
it, plus incentives the continuation of a historic internet issue that
must end and bring all resources under common rules that any other
organization is bounded to on the top of helping ending possible abuses
from those who are still not subject to the rules of any RIR.
On the top of that this has never been mentioned in *any* message for
months of discussion and has never been raised as an issue. Suddenly
someone goes to the PPM, mentions that, it becomes a mandatory change in
order for the proposal to reach rough consensus and the rest of the
people who discussed it in details have no chance oppose and properly
put up their points ? It doesn't make sense !
If the logic is that then people that have financial means to attend a
future event may be in advantage of others that participate only in the
RPD list if willing to change something substantial in the proposal at
the very last minute.
FYI the Inter-RIR transfer policy in LACNIC states any legacy resources
transferred loses its status and it is still reciprocal to any other RIR
that have an Inter-RIR policy.
Fernando
>
> Lastly a comments was made about our problem statement. I think it is
> clearly stated. The use of the term "Business" has raised a few
> eyebrows and instigated ominous thoughts. I urge everyone to read
> again with an open mind. Internet is a global enterprise, and Number
> resources, internet, IT infrastructure and business are an integral
> part of our world today. It is impractical to separate the use of
> number resources from business.
>
>
> These are my 10Cents.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Anthony Ubah
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 5:03 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed
> during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) (Blaise Fyama)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:02:20 +0200
> From: Blaise Fyama <bfyama at gmail.com <mailto:bfyama at gmail.com>>
> To: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
> <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed
> during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAPehF5dv=5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Chers co-chairs,
> Sans ?tre virulents ? votre ?gard j'ai juste deux remarques ?
> faire d'abord:
>
> 1. L'aspect multilinguiste devrait ?tre respect? dans la prise en
> compte de
> vos d?cisions, et je n'en ai pas le sentiment, ce qui implique que
> pour
> accompagner solidement vos conclusions et vos inf?rences, un tableau
> transparent regroupant sommairement les r?actions de chaque membre
> politique apr?s politique serait le bienvenu car il permettrait ?
> tout le
> monde d'avoir une vue claire et optimale de vos d?cisions.
> ?tant un acad?mique de carri?re, je constate que sur 10 politiques
> seulement 2 sont adopt?es ou en voie de l'?tre ce qui laisse
> sous-entendre
> que les 8 autres politiques, qui pourtant r?sultent de grands efforts,
> donnent un sentiment d'?chec ? leurs auteurs. Pourriez-vous
> ?couter un peu
> plus leurs auteurs?
> Je reconnais par exemple que Jordi a longuement interagis et
> ?chang? avec
> plusieurs d'entre nous sa proposition m?riterait d'?voluer.
>
> 2. Lorsqu'une remarque techniquement et valablement soutenue vous est
> adress?e pourriez-vous aussi donner des explications
> proportionnellement longues? Vos r?ponses courtes et laconiques
> laissent un
> sentiment de manque de consid?ration de ce qui vous est adress?
> par les
> membres. Sinon vous risquez d'inspirer ? leur tour les membres du
> PDWG que
> nous sommes ? concevoir des politiques qui limitent votre propre r?le.
>
> La note positive dans tout ?a est que les 2 politiques ? savoir
> les "Les
> pr?rogatives du conseil" et "Politique de transfert des
> ressources" au vu
> des longues discussions pendant des mois ont quand m?me fait du
> chemin. Je
> note seulement que nous devons rester alerte pour "Les
> pr?rogatives du
> conseil" afin de ne pas affaiblir non plus le conseil qui devrait
> demeurer
> un organe de prise des d?cisions, pour plus d'efficience et
> d'efficacit?
> dans le fonctionnement de la communaut?.
> J'en f?licite les auteurs, surtout Taiwo avec qui j'ai eu
> l'opportunit?
> d'?changer lors de l'avant-dernier sommet en Angola.
>
> Pour finir chers co-chairs efforcez-vous d'?tre multilingues pour nous
> ?crire en Fran?ais comme nous aussi on vous ?crit parfois en Anglais.
>
> Cordialement,
> Blaise.
>
>
>
> Blaise FYAMA
> Msc, PhD.
> Professeur Associ?
> Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL
> Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL
> Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL
> Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU
> Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU
> Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK
> Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET
> Tel: +243995579515
> Num?ro 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 ? 02:06, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <
> oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> a
> ?crit :
>
> >
> > 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
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>>, Weekly Bulletin
> > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin>> UGPortal
> > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/
> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>> PGPortal
> > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/
> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> <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.html
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 213
> *************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200925/1e6effea/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list