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

[lucilla fornaro]

Dear Frank,

you were the last one who posted and by "reply to all" you were inserted as
well. It was not intentional, but I don't think it creates any confusion
either. The main topic here is the Appeal, and what I wrote is related to
that!

Lucilla


Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 14:15 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
ha scritto:


> Hi all,

>

> For the record: below email from Lucilla is a *reply* to my email but

> not a response to any content of my email.

>

> Others might get confused.

> I'm sure that was not intended. But for the future it would help to

> reply to the emails that one is referring to (or start a new thread).

> Like maybe the appeal email in this case....

>

> Thanks,

> Frank

>

> On 19/10/2020 05:15, 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>

> >

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/c0446665/attachment-0001.html>