Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Mike Silber silber.mike at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 07:34:19 UTC 2020

Daniel

I have no issues with opinions. I have issues with shadowy echo chambers
comprised of uncertain identities amplifying those opinions in an attempt
to manipulate the process.

I am not shouting. I am not picking on one group. This is a ploy used many
times before and frankly I am tired of sock puppets manipulating the
process.

I have purposely expressed no opinion on the policy, merely on the process.

I am calling on identity verification to avoid manipulation and not stifle
discussion.

Please read what I have written and do not attribute to me statements or
intent that is not there.

Thanks

Mike

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 09:21, Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com> wrote:


> 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> 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>

>> 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>>

>>> > >

>>> >

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/2337aa3a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list