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

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

it seems you didn't read my email. the one you replied to.
any comments about what I wrote?

Thanks,
Frank

On 19/10/2020 08:29, lucilla fornaro wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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>

>     <mailto: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>>

>     <mailto: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>>

>     >     >     <mailto: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>>

>     >     <mailto: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>>

>     >     >     <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>

>     <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>

>     <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>>

>     >

>