Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy
Lamiaa Chnayti
lamiaachnayti at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 15:56:52 UTC 2020
Hello Jordi,
Thanks for that astute observation. Yes, while writing my proposal I was
interested in looking for multiple co-authors. Lucilla helped with this
process, not that I need to explain anything as it is normal for a proposal
proponent to look for other multiple co-authors.
Hope that clarified everything before we go down another rabbit hole.
Thanks,
Lamiaa
Le lun. 19 oct. 2020 à 10:27, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
a écrit :
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> This reminded to me something …
>
>
>
> Looking at the message
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011592.html, and the
> attached document, presumable authored by Lamiaa and Wijdane, the metadata
> shows that it was actually written by Lucilla.
>
>
>
> Not saying anything specific to this (I will comment on this proposal at
> due time) just “food for thought”.
>
>
>
> So yes, I've been always against that, but I’m starting to believe that we
> may need to rethink if something like the “ICANN” WG statement of interest
> is needed in our PDP or at least an alternative way to avoid people
> presumably using different emails or debating/contributing with at least a
> minimum experience in some topics.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 19/10/20 8:23, "Mike Silber" <silber.mike at gmail.com> escribió:
>
>
>
> 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 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
--
Lamiaa CHNAYTI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/0626125f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list