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

[Mirriam]

 Hello Ekatarina

You have the right to your own subjective long and repetitive opinions however please show some respect to the process.

In case you don't understand the process please refer to the CPM section 3.5.1.

As for Gregoire, I support this appeal.

Mirriam

    On Friday, October 16, 2020, 8:35:04 PM GMT+3, Ekaterina Kalugina <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Dear community,
I believe this appeal is problematic for the following reasons.
   
   -    
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.
   
   -    
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.
CheersNoah

_______________________________________________
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/20201016/463c1c0b/attachment-0001.html>