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

[Fernando Frediani]

Trying to make up that editorial changes can be made so freely changing 
substantially the proposal, and worse, during the last-call is so absurd 
that just by that there is enough reason to demonstrate PDP was 
violated. Despite several other points mentioned throughout the discussion.
Fernando

On 18/10/2020 23:15, lucilla fornaro wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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>

>     >     <mailto: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> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net

>     <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>

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

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

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

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

>     >

>     >

>     > _______________________________________________

>     > 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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/efd89a11/attachment-0001.html>