[rpd] recent general behaviour [was] Appeal against the declaration of consensus on proposal Resource Transfer Policy

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi Paschal, and fellow RPD participants,

Sorry for an overly long email, I have made a few suggestions lower
down, and these may not make sense without following my entire
reasoning, perhaps they will.  Please bear with me.

I believe moderation != censorship.  Also, threat !=
warning/notification.  Otherwise I agree with both the content and the
sentiment of your email.

The proposed moderation as I understood wasn't on the basis of censoring
thoughts but rather ensuring that everybody subscribed represents an
actual individual, and can at least show some form of interest.  I could
see myself possibly supporting that if it came to it.

Personally I don't mind people using multiple addresses, for example
Mike using his @gmail for personal views, and his Liquid address when
speaking on behalf of the company.  This is open and transparent - no
problems.

What I believe is being objected against is the same person pretending
to be multiple people, which is dishonest and deceptive.  I'm not
speaking towards whether this has or has not happened over the last few
days, weeks or even months.

I'd be able to support that, but not censorship (in other words, where
emails are filtered selectively based on opinion being expressed).

To an extent I can appreciate censorship against rudeness and personal
attacks, but it's difficult to draw the line anywhere sensible because
what one considers offensive is not to another.  So the only sensible
line to draw is "no emotion whatsoever" and none of us are Vulcan, so
that's also a matter of practical impossibility.  As such the only other
indisputable line is no line.  That doesn't fly either, and as such we
have rules.  The problem is we don't all interpret these rules the same,
or emotions gets the better of us.  If you call me sly I might take that
as a compliment, or I could take offence, depending on both the context
and perceived intent - and therein lies the problem:  *actual* intent vs
*perceived* intent.

Let's say someone calls me sly, I have two choices:  I can choose to
take offence or not, and then I can choose to throw a tantrum about it,
or not.  In many cases we make this choice without thinking about it,
doesn't mean we didn't make the choice.  The faster we choose to not
take offence, and the faster we realise that offence is largely taken,
not given, the faster we can move forward.  No, I'm not saying name
calling or any other form of personal attack is warranted, justified or
acceptable.  I'm saying these only carry any effect if you choose to let
them.  Choosing the opposite is sometimes hard.

I'm fairly certain that Mike won't mind me using him as an example
above, but I can't be 100% certain.  That's simply impossible.  I need
to trust that Mike is enough of an adult to not take offence at being
singled out.  I also need to be adult enough to not purposefully put
content in front of Mike to which he is likely to take offence.

What I do know without a shadow of a doubt is that the discussions
should not continue on the path it's currently going.  We're running in
emotional circles and not getting anywhere sensible.

Two primary discussions that went on recently refers:

1.  The abuse contact issue.

2.  The inter-RIR transfer policy.

On both there has been a lot said over the last month, and still no
(sensible/desirable) outcomes.  It seems that there are in both cases
two groups of people either vehemently opposed to, or in support of the
proposal, but no consensus.

In both cases to me it seems that one side is trying to be rational but
getting emotional due to being frustrated with illogical and often
emotional arguments.

Now more proposals are being raised, causing more division.  Alienating
more people, and frankly, still going in circles .  (Sorry Noah, based
on your previous interactions I'm sure you won't take offence, but to be
clear, none intended, I'm personally just not convinced another policy
proposal is what's required right at the moment.)  At the end of the day
there are no winners, and the losers are all of us, and those whom we
represent, and all the residents of Africa by implication.  My stances
on both the above two discussions is well known.  I can also honestly
say that I've made every attempt to understand those that view these
different to myself.  I can personally say that I've made every attempt
(and failed) to keep my emails on these matters professional, concise,
and with as little emotion as possible.

I can read the frustration in many of the emails of the preceding
weeks.  I think it's time that we all take a deep breath, and think for
a moment what it is that we're really trying to achieve, and why we're
really pushing for or against a specific policy.  We need to breathe,
and try to understand the opposing viewpoint.  We need to make sure that
we make our own viewpoints clear, and explain why we say what we say. 
We need to reason with logic, not emotion.

Towards this end I'd like to propose:

1.  In the case of process violations, please quote the CPM you say has
been violated (specifically section numbers), and be clear as to why you
say it's a violation, what would you have expected differently.
2.  In the case of objections to policies, please state clearly why it's
a problem.
3.  In the case of responses to (2), please address the concern.

In squash (and I'm certain other sports) we would say play the ball, not
the man.

There are (as far as I know) five related proposals now.

2 for abuse contact, one submitted, with an appeal to the call of
no-concensus.  Another that was just raised.

3 (possibly 4) inter-RIR transfer policy proposals.  One of which has
been pushed to ratification and has now been brought back to last call,
which some (myself included) would like to come back all the way to
discussion since we believe the issues are more than mere editorial. 
Having just read through section 3 of the CPM again, I can state that I
don't believe there is any clause specifically permitting or rejecting
changes during last call, however there are clear indications that
changes during this period isn't the intention (3.4.3 which is clearly
intended for a final *review*, not *development*, as such, my
interpretation is that no consensus means it must go back to
discussion), but taking a proposal back from last call back to
discussion to fix grammar also seems wrong.  Probably why the de facto
rule is "editorial changes during last call only" as this is the only
kind of change (fix grammar, spelling or similar) that don't (shouldn't
at least) change meaning/intent.

Towards making progress, may I suggest that the author of each proposal
please create a new thread, and summarises the following as concisely as
possible:

1.  Problem being addressed. (Why)
2.  How it's being addressed.
3.  Link to the specific proposal on https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals
4.  The concerns that have been raised, and how they have been addressed.
5.  Any known outstanding concerns.
6.  Current state, for example "final call", "under discussion", "no
consensus declared, appeal for consensus pending".

Please let the thread subject reference the specific proposal (full name
as per https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals).

If anyone has a concern then that's not listed there (with the current
text as on the link), please do provide it in a civil manner, if your
concern is listed, and you're not happy with the way it's been
addressed, same story.  Please remember the *why* it is a problem.  If
the fact that the text is green is a problem and you can't say why it's
a problem it probably means it's not.  Where possible, please propose
alternate text/amendments which takes current intent into consideration.

Let the authors then collate again, and we do another round or two of
the above.  Or ten if that's what's required.  Hopefully during this
we'll be able to get rid of some proposals and agree on what remains.

For the reciprocity issues, please authors, I know you probably know the
other RIRs policy better than I do, which is near naught, so where
possible, please do state any known possible issues, and where possible,
please state for us as well where you believe the policies are
reciprocal.  For example, I know one of the sticky points is the
handling of legacy space.  So let's make sure that we address the sticky
points with reciprocity.

I'm inclined to say let's leave the "in support of" emails out for the
moment, we know each proposal has it's supporters.  Let's try and not
duplicate each other.  Let's slow it down, in a manner of speaking.  It
may well get us past the goal posts faster.

For both cases we will need to pick a policy, or possibly create a whole
new policy out of the good pieces of the existing ones.  But we cannot
continue the way we have.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

On 2020/10/19 18:32, Paschal Ochang wrote:

> I keep hearing people quoting the CPM or PDP process here but I can

> bet you that if a legal counsel is to moderate our discussions a lot

> of us violate the process intentionally or unintentionally so some

> times adopting best practices while accommodating laid down principles

> is a good way to go. 

> I also saw the mail notifying the cochairs of the appeal as if

> threatening them that an appeal is coming. 

> While I believe in following the process I also believe in the

> principle of doing it in a civil manner and with the ideology of do

> unto others what you want others to do to you. I have seen calls here

> for moderation and I believe if these moderation is adopted a lot of

> us carrying out certain rhetoric will be banned due to lack of respect

> for constituted authority. In the end we should remeber that we are

> all here for one goal and not all these personal vendetta of name

> calling. Let it rest.

>

> On Monday, October 19, 2020, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net

> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>

>     My take here is that I am questioning the spirit of the appeal.

>     But of course the appellant has the right to appeal.

>

>     I understand the process clearly, I was questioning why would

>     someone be telling the Co-chairs to note the forwarding of an

>     appeal, when it is not their perogative.

>

>     I would not mind going on an unwinding road if it leads to a

>     result, but taking a trip on such road knowing fully well it will

>     result to null, it shouldn't be called a PDP. 

>

>     Simply

>     Daniel

>

>     On Oct 19, 2020 8:58 AM, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz

>     <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:

>

>

>

>         On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 10:13 Daniel Yakmut via RPD,

>         <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>

>             Is it the Co-Chairs that should confirm receipt of the

>             appeal? I thought it is their action that is being

>             appealed. If we claim we know the process the appeal

>             process is handled by the appeal committee. So the

>             confirmation should be directed to them, not the Co-Chairs.

>

>

>         On the other hand, you dont seem to understand the process. 

>

>         1st step.

>         The appeal against the action of the cochair on this proposal

>         was sent to the appeal committee first and the supporters of

>         the appeal as indicated in the document wrote to the committee

>         to confirm their support.

>

>         2nd step.

>         The appellant then did the needful as per the appeal process

>         by informing the working group that there is an appeal and

>         members of the working group who support the appeal have

>         continued to state as such.

>

>

>

>             That not withstanding, this appeal was done in bad faith

>

>         Since when is following the PDP process which gives the right

>         to the working group to appeal bad faith.

>

>

>             and will take us very long and torturous path.

>

>

>         Called the policy development process.

>

>             The most sensible action, which I agreed with, was the

>             suggestion by Jordi for an extension of the last call.

>

>

>         Shortcuts dont form part of the policy development even

>         countries regulations and laws take process as per the law.

>

>             The appeal should be ignored in favour of a more realistic

>             suggestion by Jordi. I consider it as the only suggestion

>             deviod of any sentiment.

>

>

>         Yet the process allows appeal. Are you against the PDP.

>

>         Noah

>

>

>             Simply,

>

>             Daniel

>

>             On 16/10/2020 7:48 pm, Jaco Kroon wrote:

>>

>>             Hi,

>>

>>             I also support this appeal.

>>

>>             Could the PDWG chairs please confirm receipt of appeal

>>             and confirm that all process requirements have been met?

>>

>>             Kind Regards,

>>             Jaco

>>

>>             On 2020/10/15 14:46, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD wrote:

>>>             Hello,

>>>

>>>             As per appeal process, see below a copy of my email to

>>>             appeal committee. 

>>>

>>>             Thank you and best regards,

>>>

>>>             --

>>>             Gregoire Ehoumi

>>>

>>>

>>>>             Begin forwarded message:

>>>>

>>>>             *From: *Gregoire EHOUMI <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr

>>>>             <mailto:gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>>

>>>>             *Subject: **Appeal against the declaration of consensus

>>>>             on proposal Resource Transfer Policy*

>>>>             *Date: *October 15, 2020 at 8:16:43 AM EDT

>>>>             *To: *pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net

>>>>             <mailto:pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net>

>>>>             *Cc: *Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com

>>>>             <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz

>>>>             <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>, Darwin Costa

>>>>             <dc at darwincosta.com <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com>>,

>>>>             Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com

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

>>>>

>>>>             Dear Appeal Committee,

>>>>

>>>>             I attach in PDF the document referenced in the subject

>>>>             of this email.

>>>>

>>>>             Please confirm receipt and that no information is

>>>>             missing before the applicable deadlines.

>>>>

>>>>             I also copy community members who have participated in

>>>>             this discussion supporting this appeal.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>             I look forward to hearing from you. 

>>>>

>>>>             --

>>>>             Gregoire Ehoumi

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>             _______________________________________________

>>>             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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/bfd596fa/attachment-0001.html>