Search RPD Archives
[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