[rpd] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy

[Ekaterina Kalugina]

Dear community,

I believe this appeal is problematic for the following reasons.


   1.

   The compliance to the PDP and consensus determination

1.3 The policy discussion we had was complex and nuanced and therefore it
was the co-chairs duty to reflect this nuance in their conclusions. There
was no conditions imposed. The co-chairs simply stated that if some minor
objections were to be addressed by the authors then the policy have
achieved rough consensus. Nowhere in the PDP it states how exactly the
chairs should determine consensus, therefore I believe that in this case
the chairs acted within their prerogative.

1.4 The CPM does not explicitly state that only editorial changes are
allowed. However, as you pointed out, it is understandable that such
changes may be necessary. The fact that editorial changes are the only
changes that have been made up to this point does not mean that these are
the only changes allowed. The PDP is determined by the CPM and not by the
past practices, and the CPM does not forbid any changes during the last
call, be it editorial or not.

1.5 The other proposals did not achieve consensus during the meeting as
there were still many unresolved major objections. The Resource Transfer
Policy only had minor issues that could be easily addressed by the authors.
Therefore, there is no unfairness in regard to this issue.
And again, nowhere in the CPM it states that non-editorial changes are not
allowed to take place during the last call.

1.6 These were not suggestions, but conclusions drawn by the chairs from
the discussion. They did summarize the discussion in an objective and
non-intrusive manner. But you need to keep in mind that a nuanced
discussion requires a nuanced summary.

1.7. Fairness is the basic principle that guides the PDP and that includes
actions of the co-chairs.

   1.

   Specific issues regarding the proposal being appealed

2.1 As the current situation holds – the staff assessment is not mandatory
and therefore this is not a legitimate ground for the appeal.

2.2 Again, nowhere in the CPM it states that significant changes cannot be
done during the last call. In this case particularly, all the changes in
the DRAFT-04 have been made to ensure that the Resource Transfer Policy  is
fully compatible with ARIN. There is no need for another discussion, as
this change directly addresses all the issues raised in all the discussions
that preceded the publication of this draft.

2.3 The issue of legacy resources is far too complex to be realistically
considered within the scope of the proposed policy. The goal of this policy
is to make sure AFRINIC can receive resources from other RIRs and the loss
of legacy status is necessary to ensure reciprocity. However, if there is
some perceived unfairness when it comes to the transfer of legacy
resources, a separate policy ought to be introduced following the Resource
Transfer policy. There will be the right time and place to have a
discussion on legacy with all its nuances. As of now, the main priority for
the region is to have a resource transfer policy that is reciprocal with
other RIRs.

As for your note that this proposal is not actually reciprocal with other
RIRs – it is factually incorrect. The staff confirmed that the DRAFT-02 and
DRAFT-03 are not compatible with ARIN, and this is precisely the reason
DRAFT-04 was introduced. And before you say that it was too hasty and it
needed more discussion – it really doesn’t. DRAFT-04 just removed the
section on the sending RIR being bound by the policies of the receiving RIR
that made the policy incompatible with ARIN as per staff assessment. Thus,
with all the edits considered the DRAFT-04 of the Resource Transfer Policy
should be functional and fully compatible with other RIRs.

Considering the above, I believe this appeal lacks the necessary grounds to
call for the non-declaration of concensus.

Best,

Ekaterina Kalugina

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 19:17 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:


>

>

> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 15:59 Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Hello,

>>

>> As per appeal process, see below a copy of my email to appeal committee.

>>

>

> Hi Greg

>

> Pleased to fully support this appeal against the cochairs declaration of

> rough consensus and consensus on a proposal that is had several unresolved

> valid objections.

>

> The cochairs erred bigly and its absurd to see the PDP process ignored at

> every step by those who must ensure that they follow it while acting fairly

> without being subjective like we have seen recently.

>

> Cheers

> Noah

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201016/6930a070/attachment.html>