Search RPD Archives
[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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list