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

[lucilla fornaro]

I read your email!
You answered back to Ekaterina, asking HER an explanation for what SHE
wrote! Why should I talk on her behalf? How do I know what she meant by
using those words?

Is this a constructive discussion? I don't think so.

Lucilla

Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 14:35 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
ha scritto:


> 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>>

> >     >

> >

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/d5cbe857/attachment-0001.html>