Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy
Daniel Yakmut
yakmutd at googlemail.com
Mon Oct 19 07:21:27 UTC 2020
We are becoming intolerant and dictatorial if we attempt in any form to
begin to sanction or moderate posts that are not supportive of an
opinion. I don't see any reason why we should suggest or contemplate any
moderation.
I don't also agree with attempts at cowing others not to express their
opinions because they differ. If we are sure that there are ghost IDs on
the mailing list then let us take necessary actions. However, for now
there are attempts at shutting and shouting down people.
Correctly, appeal cannot be stopped, but it has to be justified. And if
some said they are against an appeal, i think my interpretation will be
the person is against the content of the appeal, which of course does
stop the appeal. However, whether you are to say I am against an appeal
is another matter.
Simply
Daniel
On 19/10/2020 7:16 am, Mike Silber wrote:
> Lucilla or whatever your actual name is.
>
> Thank you for confirming for the mailing list that you and Ekatarina
> form part of the same echo chamber.
>
> Now you have been exposed, you attempt to create distance from that
> person/identity, but it is not working.
>
> As I wrote before, your opinion on the appeal is frankly irrelevant.
> The appeal process is to an appeal committee. There is no mechanism in
> the PDP to oppose an appeal.
>
> The appeal process is (supposed to be) objective and (hopefully) not
> capable of manipulation.
>
> This mailing list has been populated by sock puppets and fictional
> identities for years. People from various view points and perspectives
> have been using these identities to amplify their views. So this
> behavior is not new!
>
> I am not sure if it has come time to require moderation of all posts
> and positive confirmation of identity before that moderation is lifted?
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 07:49, lucilla fornaro
> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 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 <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>>
> > <mailto: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>>>
> > <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 <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>>>
> > > > <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 <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>>>
> > > <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 <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>>
> > <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>>
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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>>
> > >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> 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/20201019/22e78a19/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list