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

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

lucilla fornaro lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 08:13:09 UTC 2020

Dear Mike,

“semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” means “he who asserts
must prove”.

Your baseless allegation is a very serious one and outrightly discourteous.
Please do support your allegation with solid evidence. If not, I too am
able to say something like “Amazing that Mike Silber’s mail is immediately
supported by Mike Elkins in such short span of time”

I cannot believe I have to explain the obvious where even a kid is able to
discern this. Isn’t it obvious that we just happen to be agreeing on the
same thing and hence I do not mind at all if someone else who happens to be
on the same page as me to reply any disagreement on my behalf. I am
flabbergasted at how you are unable to discern the obvious.

Lest we forget the simplest basics, the internet is open for everyone to
discuss with each other. Therefore, even a person without a job is
technically also allowed to participate. So please do enlighten everyone
which part of the CPM where it specifically stipulates that the
participation in the mailing list must be of that to your experience(i.e.
must have met him, been on calls, knows what network he operates, etc etc).

I'd appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from spouting such
baseless allegations. Let us be courteous toward one another despite our
disagreements with each other.

I don’t want to make any accusation on anyone - but if someone is trying to
manipulate minor mistakes in order to label the other person as “puppets”
and silence them, we should really WATCH OUT for this kind of behaviour.
History have told us that how dictators silenced their dissidents simply by
giving them names and labels - we shall not let this happen in this free
and open community.


Lucilla

Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 15:17 Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>
ha scritto:


> 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

>>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/c043e306/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list