Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] AFPUB-2020-GEN-003-DRAFT01 - Simple PDP Update - chairs decision

Ish Sookun ish at lsl.digital
Mon Sep 28 16:28:03 UTC 2020


Hi Jordi,

I refer to the Section 3.1.1 of your proposal.

The discussion about the inclusion of a definition for "rough consensus"
is a déjà vu [1] and I don't see the point in bringing this back.

Regards,

Ish Sookun

[1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008704.html

On 28/09/2020 20:15, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

> Hi AK, Moses,

>

>  

>

> We really need to get a response con this. Could you provide it, please?

>

>  

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>  

>

>  

>

>  

>

> El 21/9/20 10:20, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net

> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> escribió:

>

>  

>

> (subject changed to match the list discussion)

>

>  

>

> Hi AK, Moses, all,

>

>  

>

> I’ve a terribly busy day, so I will respond later on each proposal (and

> other pending emails), but here going for the first one.

>

>  

>

> I will like to have your responses to the questions below, and also one

> of them from the staff. This is needed not only to understand your

> inputs, but also to make sure that a new possible version of the

> proposal is really catching everything correctly.

>

>  

>

> 1)      When you say “ there is strong opposition”, do you mean that

> you’re accepting those points as valid objections? I understand that

> your response here is valid for all the proposals, please confirm if

> otherwise. If your points for each proposal are not all them

> “valid-objections”, the authors need to understand what are you taking

> as valid objection and what not, so we can proceed. Note that in “rough

> consensus” we can’t talk about “strong opossition”, but instead you

> should judge what is a valid-objection and what not (this is what you

> call “irrelevant objections”, but is not clear if when the authors or

> the community refute an objection, you’re taking it as valid or

> irrelevant and it is a **key** question).

>

>  

>

> 2)      “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.”

>

>  

>

> Actually, the chairs (at least previous chairs), always indicated that

> they **take the inputs from the list as part of the consensus**. I

> recall that you also stated that in Luanda or even in the list. I will

> need to find that if you don’t recall it.

>

>  

>

> By the way, I just found this in the Luanda video:

>

>  

>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=8m

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=8m>

>

>  

>

> Anyway, can you confirm if you take the inputs in the list as part of

> the consensus-decision?

>

>  

>

> Could also previous co-chairs confirm that?

>

>  

>

> 3)      “Issues around how the chairs should drop proposals”

>

>  

>

> The actual CPM states “A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s)

> by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing

> list.” while the proposal is using the **SAME** but with a shorter

> wording “A DPP can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a

> notification to the RPD List”.

>

>  

>

> Based on that, if the proposal is not changing what we are doing

> already, how this can be a valid-objection, what is your suggestion or

> what was the community suggestion?

>

>  

>

>  

>

> 4)      “Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly believe that anonymous

> contribution should be allowed while some believes it should not”

>

>  

>

> This is the actual way we use. As we don’t count objections, but only

> valid vs non-valid, anonymous participation is irrelevant. If an

> anonymous participant say something against a proposal and it is true,

> and it is not addressed by the authors or the community, never mind it

> is anonymous **it is a valid objection**.

>

>  

>

> So how it can be a valid-objection? The ICP-2 and the bylaws talk about

> an open participantion. Based on that, what alternative we have?

>

>  

>

> Please see your own words in Luanda:

>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=13m50s

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5KebcFzUU0&t=13m50s>

>

>  

>

> 5)      “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”

>

>  

>

> In the open mic you stated that the problem was contradiction with bylaws

>

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EJploR38c&t=3h33m44s

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EJploR38c&t=3h33m44s>.

>

>  

>

> The impact analysis mention that. I will like to double check with

> Madhvi/staff if they still believe that observation from them is

> correct, because:

>

> a)      The bylaws 11.2 state “at least once a year” but we have already

> done for many years 2 PPMs per year.

>

> b)      This staff observation is in the section “AFRINIC staff

> clarification request”, which is only “clarification” not something that

> the staff is warning the community as **take care this is a problematic

> thing**.

>

> c)       Unfortunatelly the “Summary” also say that “will be in

> contradiction of the bylaws in terms of the number of PPMs held by

> AFRINIC per year”. So, can please the staff clarify this? What is their

> understanding of “at least”? Are we contradicting the bylaws, because

> the PDP already talks about “and the bi-annual AFRINIC Public Policy

> Meetings”.

>

>  

>

> And of course, if we have more PPMs, is not true that this is a problem

> for volunteers. They idea is that instead of spending 2 days in 10

> proposals, you will focuss and have less proposals in half of the time,

> for example one specific PPM for Inter-RIR, so you are using the same

> time but split in different meetings. Note also that the proposal is not

> “mandating” any number of meetings, just saying that **if neccesary**

> they can be done. It is just making explicit and being tranparent about

> something that is **actually the case** the board can call already for

> 1, 2, 3, 4 or 10 PPMs as they believe is best for the community. So

> clearly not a valid objection.

>

>  

>

> Moreover, as the proposal explicitly allows to take decisions in the

> list when the proposal has been already been presented and thru a new

> version there are no further objections, then it is actually **saving**

> time to all the community.

>

>  

>

> In the open mic, you explained that: “it is a major objection”. How come?

>

>  

>

>  

>

> 6)      “Some members of the Community thinks only burning or polarizing

> issues should be brought to the PPM”

>

>  

>

> This will be againt consensus-based bottom-up process as defined by

> ICP-2 and bylaws. If someone propose a bad idea, it is up to the

> community to not-reach consesus based on valid objections (justified

> objections), not “I don’t like it”.

>

>  

>

> Again this is what we have today, so if the proposal is not changing

> that, it can’t be a valid-objection.

>

>  

>

>  

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>  

>

>  

>

>  

>

> El 21/9/20 2:15, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng

> <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> escribió:

>

>  

>

>

> 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

> <http://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

> <http://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

> <http://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

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

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> <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.

>

> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

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

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

>

>

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> <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.

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>





More information about the RPD mailing list