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 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-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list