[rpd] End of Last call

[ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE]

Hi Jordi,
The CPM says "a final review of the draft policy is initiated by the
Cochair..." The definition of review is "a formal assessment of something
with the intention of instituting change if necessary"
The Cambridge dictionary also defined review as ."to think
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/think> or talk
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/talk> about something
again, in order <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/order> to
make changes <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/change> to
it or to make a decision
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decision> about it":
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/review
Cheers


On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 9:56 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


> Hi AK, all,

>

>

>

> See below, in-line.

>

>

>

> El 8/10/20 21:50, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear Jordi and PDWG,

>

>  Please find attached the final version of the two proposals. The board

> prerogatives had no editorial changes however there were editorial changes

> on the Transfer policy proposal. The version could not have been published

> on the web page until the co-chairs approved it. However, It should have

> been included in the initial email, we apologies for this.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] No, the problem is what it means last-call. Last-call is for the

> community to have a last round of discussion. However, if the text has not

> been published in the web site and the correct link informed in the list,

> how come the community can take a look into  that? So that’s why you should

> have extended the last call **until** that’s available and at least 2

> weeks of discussion are provided **after that**.

>

>

>

> @Caleb, Thank you we are happy to consult even beyond previous chairs, and

> we are currently doing that. Regarding publishing of draft proposal,  It

> was published before the online meeting, or which meeting are you referring

> too? We don't understand what you mean, and Please reread the CPM before

> coming to conclusions. Do not assume what the CPM says. Read it.!!!

>

> The CPM says

> 3.4.3 Last Call

>

> A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group

> Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion

> mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. *The

> Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the

> Public Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus

> has been achieved*.

>

> Please point me to the section that says Changes cannot be made during the

> last call? All we did was to do a final review and evaluate the discussion.

> Let us stop these false accusations. Everything we do is in our best

> interest even when we are left with few choices.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] All the PDPs, in all the regions that **allow** changes during

> the meeting and/or last-call, **STATE IT**. Otherwise can’t be done. If

> you check with other previous chairs of the PWG, they will tell you that in

> some situations we did **during the presentation at the meeting** (which

> means before declaring consensus) **REAL EDITORIAL CHANGES**. Editorial

> means **editorial** so something that **doesn’t** change the meaning.

>

> I agree that the changes done are to make the proposal better to reach the

> community consensus **but this is what it means having new versions in

> successive meetings**. It is a slow process, but it is what the PDP is

> meant for.

>

> So, the question for you is: “Please tell us **where** the PDP allows

> changes after the week previous to the meeting, after the proposal has been

> presented and during the last-call?”

>

>

>

> There have also been some individuals saying Co-chairs did not follow the

> PDP. *Can you please elaborate which aspect of the PDP we didn't follow?*.

> Jordi said we did not wait for a response from staff as to if the policy is

> reciprocal. Please Jordi should point us to the section of the CPM that

> said we should wait for this before taking a decision?. In any event, this

> can only be checked with the final approved version, and that was

> exactly what we had asked staff to do because this is only logical.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] The PDP allows you to extend the last-call. So, the logic process

> (assuming that changes are possible, which I don’t agree) is: Extend the

> last call so everything is fixed in the text and verified about reciprocity.

>

> I’m not saying that the PDP forces you to wait for the staff verification,

> but if the verification fails and you declared consensus (despite the

> valid-objections from the community), you’re asking the board to ratify a

> proposal that is not going to work. So, to do a good service to the

> community, you must first know what text will ensure the reciprocity and

> then use that text, not in the other way around. And all that could have

> been done during the last call (again, assuming you can do changes, which I

> don’t agree).

>

>

>

>   We asked the authors to make changes based on the comment of the

> community. We made sure that the comments of the community were taken fully

> into consideration. We didn't bother about the problem statement

> because the problem statement does not go into the CPM. We understand that

> whichever way we go there would still be some who would not be happy with

> the decision.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] I agree with that. The 3 policies are good in terms of problem

> statement, and it doesn’t go into the CPM.

>

>

>

> Therefore, we decided to remove the emotional sentiments asking that we

> move the policy back into the initial discussion stage, and we looked at

> this critically, but we could not find the reason to do this. We spent

> about two hours yesterday evaluating every point raised and we both

> evaluated the pros and cons extensively on every issue raised and we

> narrowed it down before arriving at our decisions.

>

> On the issue of the legacy holders, we all know, and it was also confirmed

> to us on the mailing list that legacy holders are not subjected to the CPM

> of any of the RIR's. Some misunderstood this initially, and this was

> corrected. Can anyone point out any of the other issue(s)that wasn't

> addressed? Please let us remove the emotional and personal differences.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] I’m not sure if the problem is being understood here. If you state

> that:

>

>    1. The current text says “Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will not

>    be longer be regarded as legacy resources”. If you change remove it, they

>    you’re acting unfairly to the previous transfers and acting against the

>    interest of the community, because those legacy holders still not get bound

>    to the CPM neither pay to AFRINIC even if they get the services.

>    2. If you keep the exiting text, they the policy is non reciprocal

>    with other RIRs, because you’re imposing them the condition of “not be

>    longer regarded as legacy”, which is against their policies (at least in

>    the case of ARIN, which is 99% of the source of the transfers”.

>    3. So, the only solution is a mix, as I already suggested several

>    times in many emails, so incoming is no longer legacy (that covers existing

>    transfers – intra-rir), but an outgoing transfer you don’t impose any

>    condition, so it is up to the destination RIR: This makes the reciprocity.

>    Example text that can make it, same as we have not but add “incoming”:

>

> “Incoming transferred IPv4 legacy resources will not be longer be regarded

> as legacy resources”

>

>

>

> *We made sure we followed the CPM to the letter on this issue,* and we

> believe that we did our best to bring this issue that has been a pain to

> the community laid to rest in a timely manner. As said earlier, whichever

> way we go, some would object to it, and we decided to deal with this once

> and for all in the best interest of the community with the least possible

> pain to the community. You elected us to serve the best interest of the

> community while leaving behind emotional issues, and we would continue to

> do just as best as we can.

>

>

>

> [Jordi] I still suggest you to considering the points raised today,

> following the CPM, extend the last-call, wait for the staff confirmation

> and then adjust the text and give the community a few more days before

> closing the last-call. Note that I’m still firmly believing that changes

> aren’t allowed by the PDP, but if an appeal fails on that, we will have a

> policy that it is reciprocal, instead of something that is not.

>

>

>

> Co-Chair,

>

> PDWG

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:47 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <

> rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

>

> Hi Moses, all,

>

>

>

> I feel that there is a fundamental mistake here and I beg you to

> reconsider it.

>

>

>

> You've not waited for the staff confirmation about the reciprocity of the

> Inter-RIR transfers. What happens if now the staff comes back and confirms

> that we can’t decide in our policy what do to in other regions, so there is

> no reciprocity and so, we can’t implement this policy?

>

>

>

> Accordingly, I strongly suggest that you change your mind, following

> section 3.5 of the PDP: “A person who disagrees with the actions taken by

> the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or with the

> PDWG”.

>

>

>

> The reasons for this are:

>

> 1.       The only valid proposal version is the one that is published at

> the web site and then announced to the list. The authors did changes

> several times, that aren’t there. As we are discussing version 2, we should

> have a version 2.x to show those.

>

> 2.       The staff must confirm the reciprocity of the last 2.x version

> in the list. As indicated in 3.4.3, you can extend the last-call to ensure

> that this is matched.

>

> 3.       This and other aspects, have been indicated several times by

> myself and others during the last-call. Those are valid-objections that

> remain unresolved and if you extend the last-call and agree with the latest

> changes from the authors, then could make sense, otherwise, it is

> impossible that you can declare the last-call and still “consensus”.

>

>

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 8/10/20 1:37, "Moses Serugo" <moses.serugo at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Hello PDWG members,

>

>

>

> Following the last online PPM held on 16th-17th September 2020. Last call

> was announced on 21st September 2020 for the following policy proposals.

>

> ·         Board Prerogatives on the PDP

>

> ·         Resource Transfer Policy

>

> This is to further announce that the  last call period for the above

> proposals has ended, based on feedback received from the community and the

> editorial changes made by authors to address community concerns, the

> consensus decision from AFRINIC32 is still maintained.

>

> Co-Chairs will now send a report to the Board recommending ratification of

> the two above proposals in line with CPM 3.0.

>

> Regards,

>

> Co-Chairs

>

> _______________________________________________ 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

>

> 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/>

>

>

>

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

> 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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>


-- 
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/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201009/007ce0c6/attachment-0001.html>