[rpd] End of Last call

[lucilla fornaro]

Dear Ekaterina, dear community,

The main disagreement seems to be section 3.4.3 on the Last Call, even if
it does not openly cover the topic of "making change" during the last call,
it does not forbid it either. This means that no violations have occurred.
As Ekaterina said, the PDP is administered by the CPM, and not by the
decisions of the previous co-chairs.

 As for Jordi's argument, I believe that it may be useful in certain
circumstances to take as an example the other RIRs,  in this specific case,
the only thing that matters is how we can interpret the CPM for the
interest of the AFRINIC community.

Mark said: "People should also take into account the work Jordi has done in
all of these registries regarding policy proposals both present and past
(including AFRINIC). I believe he has a level of experience second to none."
Again, this is not a competition on who joined the community first. I am
sure Jordi contributed a lot to the community growth with his presence, but
this is a community, not a hierarchical organization where the "oldest
MEMBER" takes or direct the decisions. It is a process where everyone can
contribute.

regards,

Lucilla

Il giorno ven 9 ott 2020 alle ore 23:27 Ekaterina Kalugina <
kay.k.prof at gmail.com> ha scritto:


> Dear Jordi, dear community,

>

> First of all, it is incredibly rude and disrespectful to dismiss the

> arguments you do not agree with as 'useless noise'. Whether you choose to

> reply or not is fully up to your discretion. Regardless, you can find my

> comments below in line.

>

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, 14:14 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Let’s be logic and rational: I also mention the AFRINIC case as well!

>>

>>

>>

>>    1. FACT 1: We have a sentence that requires a stable version 1 week

>>    before the meeting. Nothing in the remaining text changes that. So, the PDP

>>    position is still based on that sentence.

>>

>> Yes, there is a sentence that requires a stable version one week before

> the meeting so that it can be discussed. However, nowhere in the text is

> states that the policy is cannot be changed after the meeting.

> Whatever you think the position of the PDP is solely your subjective

> interpretation.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 2: Previous co-chairs allowed **in the meeting, during the

>>    proposal presentation** editorial adjustments (rewording, grammar,

>>    typos), **only** if those adjustments didn’t change the proposal

>>    interpretation. I’ve been several times, we got proposals that had changes

>>    much smaller than the actual ones, and they needed to wait for a new

>>    version and a new meeting 6 months afterwards.

>>

>> As far as I understand (and please do correct me if I'm wrong), the PDP

> is governed by the CPM and not by the decisions is the previous co-chairs.

> Therefore, I fail to see how this argument is in any way relevant

>

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 3: If **after** the proposal is presented, we allow changes

>>    “to declare consensus”, is not that the same as when we have a new version

>>    after a meeting and the proposal need to wait for a new meeting?

>>

>> Again I fail to see this as a counter argument. The authors has made the

> necessary changes so that consensus can be achieved. There is no new

> version.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 4: If we allow 3 above, then **all the proposals** should

>>    have the same chances of allowing adjustments, otherwise we are having a

>>    different treatment among different proposals and this is against the full

>>    purpose of the PDP.

>>

>> Again, this is not a valid argument because all the other proposals did

> not achieve rough consensus during the PPM.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 5: I’m convinced that the chairs acted in good faith, but

>>    that doesn’t excuse errors in the interpretation of the PDP, including the

>>    lack of a formal stable version available during all the last call.

>>

>> You keep talking about errors made by the co-chairs, yet the only errors

> I see are the ones within your judgment. I am not going to repeat my

> arguments stated in my last email. I will only say that technically no

> violations of the PDP occurred.

>  If anyone thinks otherwise you must make a good case specifying which

> sections were violated and how. As per my last email, the section 3.4.3 was

> NOT violated.

> In addition, nowhere in the CPM it is stated that the chairs are obliged

> to post the stable version for the last call. Of course it is important to

> do so, however it cannot be considered a violation of the CPM.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 6: Anyone in disagreement of the yesterday chairs decision

>>    has 2 weeks to appeal the decision. There is no discussion on that. The 2

>>    weeks timing re-starts after **every** chairs decision. The appeal

>>    could have been submitted in September, but it can be submitted also now,

>>    because the last-call discussion proved that there is no continued

>>    consensus (which is the meaning of the last-call).

>>

>> Okay, then you are free to make such an appeal. Just make sure to do so

> in a timely manner.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 7: The board can **only** ratify a proposal if the PDP has

>>    been followed. If the board has any doubts on any nit on the process, they

>>    can return the proposal to the PDWG for continuing the discussion.

>>

>> Like you said, this is up to the board to decide.

>

>>

>>    1.

>>    2. FACT 8: Instead of making a mistake and having **all this

>>    discussion**, in case of doubt, we should follow the interpretation

>>    done during many years, because it is the actual practice, and ask the

>>    board to call for a new meeting in 2-3 months. I’m convinced that it can be

>>    much more efficient and not create troubles.

>>

>>

>>

> The argument of "we have always done it before" is a very dangerous one.

> It has been used by most nazis, racists, and mysoginists throughout

> history.

>

> The times are changing, and thanks to COVID they are changing at an

> unprecedented speed. Therefore, the way we conduct the PDP and follow the

> CPM must change accordingly. In fact, Jordi, it is strange that this has to

> be explained to such an intelligent person like yourself.

>

> That is all I have to say for now.

>

> Best,

>

> Ekaterina

>

>> I think the chairs should take a decision if they still believe that they

>> did all right (remembering that a stable version was not available during

>> all the last call), or if it better to extend or cancel the last call and

>> ask the board for a focused new meeting just to resolve this proposal (it

>> can be for others as well, I will not object to that, or even one each

>> month from now on). Otherwise, anyone from the community can go for an

>> appeal and/or the board should make sure if the process has been followed.

>>

>>

>>

>> I’m not going to reply anymore to this, it is starting to be useless

>> noise and not helping anyone.

>>

>>

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Jordi

>>

>> @jordipalet

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> El 9/10/20 13:39, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> escribió:

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear community,

>>

>>

>>

>> It has been really disconcerting reading the last night's discussion. The

>> amount of personal attacks and passive aggressive statements is making the

>> discussion completely futile. The road of pointing fingers leads nowhere.

>> So let us please stop this and focus on the facts.

>>

>>

>>

>> And the facts are that there seems to be a single section of the CPM that

>> is causing most of the controversy. Namely is it the section 3.4.3 on the

>> Last Call. From what I can see one camp is arguing that no changes can be

>> made during the last call. While the other camp is arguing that it is not

>> forbidden.

>>

>>

>>

>> This is the problem with language - it always leaves room for

>> interpretation. Therefore, different people reading this section would

>> interpret it differently.

>>

>>

>>

>> But the fact is that NO violations took place. Yes, it is true that the

>> section does not explicitly talk about making changes during the last call.

>> However, it does not prohibit us from doing so.

>>

>>

>>

>>  As for Jordi's argument that this is not how it's interpreted in the

>> other RIRs - it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters right now is how

>> we can best interpret the CPM for the benefit of the AFRINIC community.

>>

>>

>>

>> Some of you with different understanding of the CPM may disagree. And

>> it's okay. It seems like the way things are now, achieving any form of

>> agreement is impossible. The only thing that is the possible is to follow

>> the CPM in the way that benefits the community. And it has been clearly

>> stated many times that having a resource transfer policy as soon as

>> possible IS for the benefit of the community. It is also in the benefit of

>> the community that such policy shall be fully compatible with other RIRs.

>> Therefore, it is for the benefit of the community and the region that the

>> necessary changes are made during the last call.

>>

>>

>>

>> And again for those in the back, the CPM does NOT prohibit changes during

>> the last call. Therefore, technically speaking no violations have occurred.

>>

>>

>>

>> Finally, I would like to point out that the CPM is there to SERVE the

>> best interests community. It really pains me to see how many of you put the

>> wording of the rules above the interests of the people these rules are

>> meant to represent.

>>

>>

>>

>> The fact is that many will suffer if this policy is not passed in a

>> timely manner. And i firmly believe that it is our duty to prevent this

>> from happening in any way we can.

>>

>>

>>

>> Best,

>>

>>

>>

>> Ekaterina

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, 11:07 lucilla fornaro <

>> lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>> Dear Mirriam,

>>

>>

>>

>> Is this a competition on who joined the community first?

>>

>> I keep reading insults and arguments that NOTHING have to do with this

>> policy and the end of the last call. In an open and inclusive community

>> like Afrinic it is normal to have newbies. Most of the people here have

>> professional experience in some related fields, and their contribution

>> should be welcomed and appreciated, that's how a community grows.

>>

>>

>>

>> Regarding the more serious matter, Co-chairs followed the procedure

>> performing their administrative function within the scope of the CPM, and

>> those who disagree with it did not offer a solution to get the community

>> out of this standoff.

>>

>>

>>

>> In my opinion, when situations like this happen, the only way is to

>> follow the procedure and direction of co-chairs.

>>

>>

>>

>> regards,

>>

>>

>>

>> Lucilla

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Il giorno ven 9 ott 2020 alle ore 06:03 Mirriam via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> ha scritto:

>>

>> Hi Pascal,

>>

>> Long time since Kampala last year.

>>

>> Just to add that we have always had newbies who join the rpd list and

>> become part of the pdwg , learn and contribute  to discussions and I was

>> one of them since back in 2015.

>>

>> We have also had newbies like Hilario who appears, contributes like the

>> world is ending and then disappear from the face of rpd.

>>

>> We have also had newbies who behave like paid up mercenaries. But we

>> welcome newbies of course and some of us are learning and contributing one

>> day at a time.

>>

>> I think what others are saying is that, newbies must also take time and

>> learn rather than jumping to conclusion.

>>

>> I am a woman and I have never been intimidated by anyone here or even

>> during my first ever AIS meeting in Kampala, I was happy to meet people,

>> learn and socialize with all and believe me I learned a lot from seniors

>> that today I am able to contribute my 2 cents once in a while.

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Mirriam

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thursday, October 8, 2020, 11:17:37 PM GMT+3, Paschal Ochang <

>> pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> I don't think it will be right to make some derogatory remarks with

>> respect to participant's timeline of entry into the discussions. Rather, we

>> should look at the content of discussions and contributions which in this

>> case is very positive. We as a community encourage active participation to

>> bring the best out of Policy development outcomes. A few years ago this

>> platform wasn't that active but the amount of recent comments and

>> participation shows that there is a move in the positive direction.

>>

>>

>>

>> The so called newbies have been giving intelligent contributions

>> therefore telling them to go and read committees archives does not

>> necessarily dictate that they are not well schooled or knowledgeable to

>> engage in the PDP process.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Thursday, October 8, 2020, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> +1. Let not waste  our valuable time.  No need to also try to understand

>> why these people are so afraid of appeal.   These newbies should read

>> carefully the PDP and consult the appeal committee's archives to educate

>> themselves  https://afrinic.net/policy/ appeal-committee/appeal-2018-

>> 01-02#details

>> <https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee/appeal-2018-01-02#details>

>>

>>

>>

>> Thanks

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>>

>> Arnaud

>>

>>

>>

>> Le jeu. 8 oct. 2020 à 14:04, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a

>> écrit :

>>

>> Gaby please read the PDP correctly and do not confuse people.

>>

>> The section 3.5.1 of the CPM says "disagrees with the actions taken by

>> the Chair(s)" not just with declarations made during the PPM. The Chairs

>> could have changed their decision meanwhile but unfortunately they haven't

>> done. They have just decided to keep it and it is "a decision" which by the

>> CPM bound to appeal.

>>

>> Fernando

>>

>> On 08/10/2020 10:49, Gaby Giner wrote:

>>

>> Dear community,

>>

>>

>>

>> I agree with Lucilla but only wish to add 1 point.

>>

>>

>>

>> I think everyone has overlooked one huge matter.

>>

>>

>>

>> It is true that by section 3.5(1) of the CPM “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”.

>>

>>

>>

>> However, I wish to remind everyone that by section 3.5(2) of the CPM,

>> “The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of

>> the decision”.

>>

>>

>>

>> Applying this into the current facts, the Chair has publicly announced

>> its decision on 17th September 2020 through the online PPM, whereas, the

>> disagreement/appeal is only made on 2nd October 2020 onward, which is

>> factually beyond the 14 days period to appeal.

>>

>>

>>

>> Therefore, the disagreements/appeal made in this email thread/mailing

>> list must be deemed invalid and be disregarded.

>>

>>

>>

>> Thanks,

>>

>>

>>

>> Gaby

>>

>>

>>

>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020, 9:05 PM lucilla fornaro, <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.

>> com <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>

>> Dear Sami, dear all,

>>

>>

>>

>> Most of the arguments supporting the policy were not mere "opinions".

>>

>> A quick reminder, the policy reached a rough consensus during the PPM and

>> went to the last call for some editorial changes. The authors, Taiwo and

>> Anthony, proved to be remarkably active to manage minor issues and

>> solicitudes from the community. The resource transfer policy aims to build

>> a stable and efficient resources management system for the Afrinic service

>> region.

>>

>> The overall discussion has been full of controversies undermining the

>> work of the co-chairs, an unfair behavior in my opinion.  Also, the

>> arguments against the policy have been strongly taken apart.

>>

>> We have been debating this policy for weeks, it is now time to move it to

>> the board for ratification.

>>

>>

>>

>> regards,

>>

>>

>>

>> Lucilla

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> Il giorno gio 8 ott 2020 alle ore 21:09 Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <

>> rpd at afrinic.net> ha scritto:

>>

>> Hi,

>>

>> I can't see how the "Resource Transfer Policy" could have reached

>> consensus.

>> I think the co-chairs' prerogative is to declare consensus on policies,

>> not general opinions. And "we need an inter-RIR transfer policy" is a

>> general opinion, not a policy.

>> The policy in question still had objections (non-editorial) before last

>> call. And it received significant changes during the last call period

>> (it is not what last call is meant for).

>>

>> Not that I have any interest in the policy itself being ratified or not.

>> It shouldn't be done this way.

>>

>> Just my 2c.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Sami

>>

>> On 10/8/20 12:30 AM, Moses Serugo wrote:

>> > Hello PDWG members,

>> >

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

>> > call was announced on 21^st 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

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

>> >

>>

>> ______________________________ _________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

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

>>

>> ______________________________ _________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

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

>>

>>

>>

>> ______________________________ _________________

>>

>> RPD mailing list

>>

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>

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

>>

>> ______________________________ _________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

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

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> Kind regards,

>>

>> Paschal.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

>>

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

>> 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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201010/c258d629/attachment-0001.html>