Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 03:58:22 UTC 2020
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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list