Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy
Frank Habicht
geier at geier.ne.tz
Mon Oct 19 05:34:52 UTC 2020
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>>
> >
>
More information about the RPD
mailing list