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 08:32:09 UTC 2020
Community
I encourage you to take the quiz (I acknowledge it is rather US/centric):
https://spotthetroll.org
Lucilla (or whoever you are): I do not debate sock puppets.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 10:13, lucilla fornaro <
lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/f12ed461/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list