[rpd] End of Last call

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

(I’m sorry to be so late to the party … I’m with a customer project and a bit overbooked for a few days. I just want to make sure to reply to this one by now, I will read the rest and response if needed in the next few days)

 

Hi Ekaterina,

 

I’m not sure how much you have participated or contributed to the IETF, but you’re making a big mistake here, like comparing apples to grapes.

 
The IETF process *only* takes the decisions in the list (emails), *not* in the meetings.
As a consequence, *of course* the changes *can’t* be done during the meeting, but via a *new version* published in the IETF repository.
Only changes *published* in the repository are going to a new round of discussion, in order to reach consensus.
Only editorial changes (and as editorial it is only accepted grammar, clarifications, spelling – nothing else) *agreed* during the last call, are acceptable.
In the IETF there are *further* steps. One of them is the AD (Area Director) or designated document shepherd, which will ensure that the process has been followed. Then the document can go for the last call. After the last call, it goes to the IESG. The IESG could be assimilated to the AFRINIC board, in some sense. The IESG will review the document and can bring it back to the WG. In this case the IESG is not only responsible for ensuring that the document is good, but is also technically correct (which is not the case for the AFRINIC board, but they could not ratify a document if the process has not been followed or it is against the membership).
 

So yes, we use the rough consensus definition as per the IETF but *not* the same process, so you can’t make a confusion about both of them.

 

Only the RIRs that in the PDP have an explicit allowance for editorial changes allow them (which is not the case for AFRINIC), and again is only editorial, not changes to accommodate what was decided in the meeting if they are beyond “editorial”.

 

I’m talking about this based on real experience in all the 5 RIRs and the IETF. I’ve got a few hundreds of documents going to the last call among all the RIRs and IETF and have been in all the possible situations, including editorial changes and changes that for me, as the author, were editorial and the relevant WG chairs decided not being editorial and needed to go for a new version following all the process.

 

I may be wrong, but based in my experience, I think I’ve a sufficiently deep knowledge of what I’m talking about.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 18/10/20 21:25, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Dear Frank, dear community. Please see my responses below in-line. 

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020, 19:47 Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

Hi,

On 09/10/2020 14:31, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:

> Dear community,

> 

...> And the facts are that there seems to be a single section of the CPM

> that is causing most of the controversy. Namely is it the section 3.4.3

> on the Last Call. From what I can see one camp is arguing that no

> changes can be made during the last call. While the other camp is

> arguing that it is not forbidden.


There is something like the "letter of the law" and something like "the
spirit of the law".

Maybe those of us with more time, more involvement and more experience
with this policy development for Internet numbering resources might have
picked up one of two things about the "spirit of the law" - even if
something is not written down.

In my opinion, and I trust that I'm not alone, editorial changes that
are improvements and that are generally agreed on during the meeting can
be done during the last-call period. A change from "4-byte ASN" to "ASN
greater than 65535" would be such a change. And this has happened. And
in my opinion should be permitted. So I think that explains why in the
CPM changes are not completely 100% ruled out.

But if a proposal has problems *in* the meeting, no agreement, no rough
consensus, then changes to achieve rough consensus are substantial, not
just editorial. That's why these are supposed to be before the meeting.

 

If editorial changes that are improvements are allowed during the meeting according to the "spirit of the law," why wouldn't these current changes be allowed. I could also say that the changes that were done to the resource transfer policy were the necessary changes that were agreed on during the meeting. All the changes done were not changing the essence of the policy which is to allow free mutual resource transfer with other RIRs.  Rather, the changes were made to ensure that the concerns of  the community's concerns are set at ease and the policy is fully functional. 

 

And before you say that if there are still concerns within the community, then there is no rough consensus, I would like to refer to the text of the IETF working group guidelines that defines the concept of the rough consensus. And it states, and I quote:

 

"Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail. (However, "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). <... > It is up to the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached"

 



> This is the problem with language - it always leaves room for

> interpretation. Therefore, different people reading this section would

> interpret it differently. 

> 

> But the fact is that NO violations took place. Yes, it is true that the

> section does not explicitly talk about making changes during the last

> call. However, it does not prohibit us from doing so.


Please not that there are small changes and big changes. and there are
changes agreed on in the meeting and there are changes not agreed on in
the meeting.

 

According to the definition of the rough consensus, the changes do not have to be completely agreed during the meeting. The dominant view during the meeting was, as per the determination of the co-chairs, that the rough consensus was achieved provided a couple of necessary changes were made.

 

 So then, as per your logic and the logic of the IETF, these changes should be allowed to take place. This would be in the "spirit of the law" and for the benefit of the community. 



>  As for Jordi's argument that this is not how it's interpreted in the

> other RIRs - it is irrelevant. The only thing that matters right now is

> how we can best interpret the CPM for the benefit of the AFRINIC community. 


It might well be "irrelevant" according to the letter of the law (CPM),
but the spirit is that also in AfriNIC changes after the meeting have to
be a) agreed on and b) editorial for the proposal to proceed.
if the changes are not generally agreed on or if they are substantial,
then they should not be done in last call (or between meeting and
last-call). I believe this is the spirit of the AfriNIC CPM and I
believe that this is how this was handled for several years.

 

The "spirit of the law"  doesn't come from the past practices. It comes from the intention behind the letter of the law. And the intention of the law is to benefit the community. So then all the decisions done according to the dominant view and for the benefit of the community are in the spirit of the law. 


It is very well possible that the CPM does not adequately reflect the
spirit in its text. I think if there is a feeling that this should be
corrected, proposals will be welcome.

 

Okay, so then if the CPM does not adequately reflect "the spirit of the law" then where does it come from? Doesn't it come from its authors, i.e. the community? . And if the dominant view of the community is determined to favor the necessary changes. Wouldn't supporting them the reflection of the "spirit of the law"? 

 


I would also like to note that (I anticipate) some will say that my
interpretation is just that and "incorrect", but please note I can say
the same bout the opposite interpretation

 

And that is the main problem here, as i mentioned in the previous email. Due to the nature of language we cannot escape the need for interpretation. Therefore, we get into the deadlock of your interpretation vs mine.

This path would lead us nowhere. Instead let us try to agree on an interpretation that would benefit the region at this point in time. 

 


> Some of you with different understanding of the CPM may disagree. And

> it's okay. It seems like the way things are now, achieving any form of

> agreement is impossible. The only thing that is the possible is to

> follow the CPM in the way that benefits the community. And it has been

> clearly stated many times that having a resource transfer policy as soon

> as possible IS for the benefit of the community. It is also in the

> benefit of the community that such policy shall be fully compatible with

> other RIRs.



> Therefore, it is for the benefit of the community and the

> region that the necessary changes are made during the last call.


This ("shall be fully compatible with other RIRs") makes the changes
substantial.

Maybe as illustration: would you support abolishing the electoral
college in US elections on November 4th?</rhetorical question>
No response please - i'm just thinking of examples of changing
goal-posts during extra-time.


> And again for those in the back, the CPM does NOT prohibit changes

> during the last call. Therefore, technically speaking no violations have

> occurred. 


Technically you would have to agree that it's really bad if a proposal
gets changed substantially during last call; it change from something
that had rough consensus to something very different.
The changes are that big in this case.


> Finally, I would like to point out that the CPM is there to SERVE the

> best interests community. It really pains me to see how many of you put

> the wording of the rules above the interests of the people these rules

> are  meant to represent. 


I think, technically, you were insisting on the wordings here.

 

No I am, just like you, insisting that the spirit of the law is intended to benefit the community. 



> The fact is that many will suffer if this policy is not passed in a

> timely manner.



Names, please.

 

There may be thousands. The community keeps telling you that there has to be a transfer policy as soon as possible, otherwise the economy of the region could be negatively affected. Even if you do not see it like this, when someone is proposing a way of eliminating a potential danger and create the safe net - we should listen. This would be in the spirit of the law. 

 

In addition, if there is anything this COVID crisis had taught us is that preventative measures are always better than damage control. 

 

Best, 

 

Ekaterina 

 


Regards,
Frank



> And i firmly believe that it is our duty to prevent this

> from happening in any way we can. 

> 

> Best, 

> 

> Ekaterina 

>    

> 

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2020, 11:07 lucilla fornaro

> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com

> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> wrote:

> 

> 

>     Dear Mirriam, 

> 

>     Is this a competition on who joined the community first? 

>     I keep reading insults and arguments that NOTHING have to do with

>     this policy and the end of the last call. In an open and inclusive

>     community like Afrinic it is normal to have newbies. Most of the

>     people here have professional experience in some related fields, and

>     their contribution should be welcomed and appreciated, that's how a

>     community grows. 

> 

>     Regarding the more serious matter, Co-chairs followed the procedure

>     performing their administrative function within the scope of the

>     CPM, and those who disagree with it did not offer a solution to get

>     the community out of this standoff.

> 

>     In my opinion, when situations like this happen, the only way is to

>     follow the procedure and direction of co-chairs. 

> 

>     regards,

> 

>     Lucilla

> 

> 

>     Il giorno ven 9 ott 2020 alle ore 06:03 Mirriam via RPD

>     <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> ha scritto:

> 

>         Hi Pascal,

> 

>         Long time since Kampala last year.

> 

>         Just to add that we have always had newbies who join the rpd

>         list and become part of the pdwg , learn and contribute  to

>         discussions and I was one of them since back in 2015.

> 

>         We have also had newbies like Hilario who appears, contributes

>         like the world is ending and then disappear from the face of rpd.

> 

>         We have also had newbies who behave like paid up mercenaries.

>         But we welcome newbies of course and some of us are learning and

>         contributing one day at a time.

> 

>         I think what others are saying is that, newbies must also take

>         time and learn rather than jumping to conclusion.

> 

>         I am a woman and I have never been intimidated by anyone here or

>         even during my first ever AIS meeting in Kampala, I was happy to

>         meet people, learn and socialize with all and believe me I

>         learned a lot from seniors that today I am able to contribute my

>         2 cents once in a while.

> 

>         Best regards,

>         Mirriam

> 

> 

>         On Thursday, October 8, 2020, 11:17:37 PM GMT+3, Paschal Ochang

>         <pascosoft at gmail.com <mailto:pascosoft at gmail.com>> wrote:

> 

> 

>         I don't think it will be right to make some derogatory remarks

>         with respect to participant's timeline of entry into the

>         discussions. Rather, we should look at the content of

>         discussions and contributions which in this case is very

>         positive. We as a community encourage active participation to

>         bring the best out of Policy development outcomes. A few years

>         ago this platform wasn't that active but the amount of recent

>         comments and participation shows that there is a move in the

>         positive direction.

> 

>         The so called newbies have been giving intelligent contributions

>         therefore telling them to go and read committees archives does

>         not necessarily dictate that they are not well schooled or

>         knowledgeable to engage in the PDP process. 

> 

> 

>         Thursday, October 8, 2020, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com

>         <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:

> 

>             +1. Let not waste  our valuable time.  No need to also try

>             to understand why these people are so afraid of appeal. 

>              These newbies should read carefully the PDP and consult the

>             appeal committee's archives to educate themselves 

>             https://afrinic.net/policy/ appeal-committee/appeal-2018-

>             01-02#details

>             <https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee/appeal-2018-01-02#details>

> 

>             Thanks 

> 

>             --

>             Arnaud 

> 

>             Le jeu. 8 oct. 2020 à 14:04, Fernando Frediani

>             <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a écrit :

> 

>                 Gaby please read the PDP correctly and do not confuse

>                 people.

> 

>                 The section 3.5.1 of the CPM says "disagrees with the

>                 actions taken by the Chair(s)" not just with

>                 declarations made during the PPM. The Chairs could have

>                 changed their decision meanwhile but unfortunately they

>                 haven't done. They have just decided to keep it and it

>                 is "a decision" which by the CPM bound to appeal.

> 

>                 Fernando

> 

>                 On 08/10/2020 10:49, Gaby Giner wrote:

>>                 Dear community,

>>

>>                 I agree with Lucilla but only wish to add 1 point.

>>

>>                 I think everyone has overlooked one huge matter.

>>

>>                 It is true that by section 3.5(1) of the CPM “A person

>>                 who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s)

>>                 shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or

>>                 with the PDWG”. 

>>

>>                 However, I wish to remind everyone that by section

>>                 3.5(2) of the CPM, “The appeal must be submitted

>>                 within two weeks of the public knowledge of the

>>                 decision”. 

>>

>>                 Applying this into the current facts, the Chair has

>>                 publicly announced its decision on 17th September 2020

>>                 through the online PPM, whereas, the

>>                 disagreement/appeal is only made on 2nd October 2020

>>                 onward, which is factually beyond the 14 days period

>>                 to appeal. 

>>

>>                 Therefore, the disagreements/appeal made in this email

>>                 thread/mailing list must be deemed invalid and be

>>                 disregarded.

>>

>>                 Thanks,

>>

>>                 Gaby

>>

>>                 On Thu, Oct 8, 2020, 9:05 PM lucilla fornaro,

>>                 <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail. com

>>                 <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>

>>                     Dear Sami, dear all,

>>

>>                     Most of the arguments supporting the policy were

>>                     not mere "opinions". 

>>                     A quick reminder, the policy reached a rough

>>                     consensus during the PPM and went to the last call

>>                     for some editorial changes. The authors, Taiwo and

>>                     Anthony, proved to be remarkably active to manage

>>                     minor issues and solicitudes from the community.

>>                     The resource transfer policy aims to build a

>>                     stable and efficient resources management system

>>                     for the Afrinic service region.

>>                     The overall discussion has been full of

>>                     controversies undermining the work of the

>>                     co-chairs, an unfair behavior in my opinion. 

>>                     Also, the arguments against the policy have been

>>                     strongly taken apart. 

>>                     We have been debating this policy for weeks, it is

>>                     now time to move it to the board for ratification. 

>>

>>                     regards,

>>

>>                     Lucilla 

>>

>>

>>

>>                     Il giorno gio 8 ott 2020 alle ore 21:09 Sami Ait

>>                     Ali Oulahcen via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

>>                     <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> ha scritto:

>>

>>                         Hi,

>>

>>                         I can't see how the "Resource Transfer Policy"

>>                         could have reached consensus.

>>                         I think the co-chairs' prerogative is to

>>                         declare consensus on policies,

>>                         not general opinions. And "we need an

>>                         inter-RIR transfer policy" is a

>>                         general opinion, not a policy.

>>                         The policy in question still had objections

>>                         (non-editorial) before last

>>                         call. And it received significant changes

>>                         during the last call period

>>                         (it is not what last call is meant for).

>>

>>                         Not that I have any interest in the policy

>>                         itself being ratified or not.

>>                         It shouldn't be done this way.

>>

>>                         Just my 2c.

>>

>>                         Regards,

>>                         Sami

>>

>>                         On 10/8/20 12:30 AM, Moses Serugo wrote:

>>                         > Hello PDWG members,

>>                         >

>>                         > Following the last online PPM held on 16^th

>>                         -17^th September 2020. Last

>>                         > call was announced on 21^st September 2020

>>                         for the following policy

>>                         > proposals.

>>                         >

>>                         >   * Board Prerogatives on the PDP

>>                         >   * Resource Transfer Policy

>>                         >

>>                         > This is to further announce that the  last

>>                         call period for the above

>>                         > proposals has ended, based on feedback

>>                         received from the community and

>>                         > the editorial changes made by authors to

>>                         address community concerns, the

>>                         > consensus decision from AFRINIC32 is still

>>                         maintained.

>>                         >

>>                         > Co-Chairs will now send a report to the

>>                         Board recommending ratification

>>                         > of the two above proposals in line with CPM 3.0.

>>                         >

>>                         > Regards,

>>                         >

>>                         > Co-Chairs

>>                         >

>>                         >

>>                         > ______________________________ _________________

>>                         > RPD mailing list

>>                         > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>                         > 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>

>>                         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>

>>                     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>

>>                 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>

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

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

> 

> 

> 

>         -- 

>         Kind regards,

> 

>         Paschal.

> 

>         _______________________________________________

>         RPD mailing list

>         RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>         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>

>         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>

>     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 list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/9a999a4e/attachment-0001.html>