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

[lucilla fornaro]

Dear Community,

I am against this appeal for the following reasons:

*1.1* Co-chairs followed the procedure fulfilling their administrative
function within the scope of the CPM. The co-chairs carried out their
administrative functions that include advancing suggestions.

Consequently, the authors have the choice to adopt the suggestions and make
a change.

The PDP allows and does not forbid the co-chairs from making suggestions
concerning major objections facilitating the overall discussion related to
the policy that can potentially reach consensus.

*1.2 *“Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not
necessarily accommodated”. That is exactly what happened: the policy
reached a rough consensus during the PPM (openly determined by Co-chairs)
and went to the last call for some editorial changes.

*1.3* PDP needs to be considered as a guideline of practices and not strict
rules. It adopts COMMONLY accepted practices and provides the FLEXIBILITY
to adapt to a variety of circumstances that can occur during the discussion
of policies.

Co-chairs did not make the rough consensus of the policy conditional, they
have just advanced some suggestions, that as we said fulfilling their
administrative function within the scope of Afrinic.

*1.4* The PDP is managed and administered by the CPM that does not forbid
making changes.

If we want to follow an objective reading and interpretation of PDP, we
will see that nowhere in the text it is stated that the policy is not
allowed to underdo editorial changes after the meeting. This means that no
violation occurred.

*1.5* No major changes have been addressed in the last 2 drafts, in fact
there was no need for Impact Analysis from Afrinic. It is clear that the
community members have had exhaustive time to discuss the policy and
therefore there is no violation of CPM.

*1.6* Co-Chairs job is to address major objections and suggest changes (it
is part of their administrative work). The co-chairs have never been
intrusive or coercive in their suggestions. They have never tried to
persuade the authors to make changes by using threats.

*2.1* The Working Group Chairs MAY request AFRINIC to provide an analysis
of the changes made and of how these changes impact the policy proposal.
This proves that no major changes have been made for DRAFT03 and DRAFT04,
therefore there is no need for an Impact Assessment from AFRINIC .

*2.2 *By removing the previous paragraph, the authors did not alter the
overall purpose of the proposal.  For what concerns 5.7.3.1, 5.7.3.2,
5.7.4.1, changes concern the styles used in the document and general
appearance and this is to be considered under the “editorial change”.
Simple clarifications that do not alter the substantive meaning of the
proposal material.

*2.3* The proposal has been exhaustively discussed in the RPD mailing list.

RIPE indicates AFRINIC the references and recommendations that it needs to
manage legacy space.

The current transfer policy's purpose does not mainly focus on solving this
problem.

This proposal was done with the intention of gaining reciprocity with the
principal contributor of IPv4s which is ARIN.

ARIN has responded that the Resource Transfer Policy is not compatible with
their inter-RIR transfer policies because of the following statement
therein - “The source must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 address
resources registered with any RIR and shall be in compliance with the
policies of the receiving RIR.”


regards,

Lucilla

Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 01:02 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
ha scritto:


> Hi Ekaterina,

>

> see inline below.

>

> 16/10/2020 20:33, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:

> > 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.

>

> I think the part after the 'if' is a condition.

> I think you're contradicting yourself.

>

> Maybe I have a problem with my English knowledge. If so, please help me

> understand.

>

> Of course after that (what I call a contradiction), I could not continue

> reading the email, because I can't be sure whether you base you

> arguments on "no conditions" or on "If ...".

>

> I really hope co-chairs and all in this WG don't give too much weight to

> arguments based on self-contradicting statements. The facts are there.

> And of course I hope that was "professional and respectful" enough for

> Lamiaa.

>

> Regards,

> Frank

>

> > 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.

> >

> >  2.

> >

> >     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 <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>

> > wrote:

> >

> >

> >

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

> >     <mailto: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 <mailto: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

> >

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201019/677a865d/attachment-0001.html>