[rpd] End of Last call

[Frank Habicht]

Thank you Alain!

I agree with all points made and I hope the Co-chairs can address them
and the questions raised.

Thanks,
Frank


On 09/10/2020 07:44, ALAIN AINA via RPD wrote:

> Hello,

> 

>> On 8 Oct 2020, at 19:50, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

>>

>> 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.

> 

> Can you show  what you are calling here editorial changes ?

> 

> during the last-call  2 versions of ‘draft policy proposal’ where submitted. The last one was submitted 3 days before you ended the last call.

> 

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011422.html

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011610.html

> 

> 

>> The version could not have been published on the web page until the co-chairs approved it.

> 

> 

> Since when cochairs approve changes to proposals ?  amended proposals are submitted to community for discussion.

> 

> In the last submission, the authors said the following :

> 

> ====

> Attached herewith is the newest and updated version of the proposal for the community's further discussion. We hope to have completely allayed the fears and concerns of the community with this version. 

> =====

> 

> 

>> However, It should have been included in the initial email, we apologies for this.

> 

> These apologies  are other  illustrations of  violation of the PDP. 

> 

>>

>> @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?

> 

> Can you point to  the section which allows  changes to  “Draft Policy’ in last-call? and which type of changes are allowed ?

> 

> Please don’t confuse “Draft Policy Proposal’  with ‘Draft Policy’. The PDP makes a clear distinction

> 

> Section 3.4.1 indicates what you can  with a “Draft Policy Proposal”  before it becomes a “Draft Policy” which is submitted to Last-call for final review 

> 

>> 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.

> 

> 

>> 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?.

> 

>  You did ask  for the check on reciprocity which comply to section 3.4.1 which says:

> 

> ====

> The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of the impact of the draft policy proposal.

> ====

> and you did not even bother to  wait for the response.  Another serious violation of the PDP.

> 

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011423.html

> 

> 

> —Alain

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>> 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. 

>>   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. 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. 

>> 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. 

>>

>> 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:

>>

>> 	• 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.

>> 	• 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.

>> 	• 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, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal

>>

>> <AfriNIC-board-PDP-v1-revised.docx><Transfer Policy Proposal Latest Version 10.7.docx>_______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>