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

[Mike Silber]

Well said Jaco

I think you make many very good points and your call for discipline by us
all is well noted!

I personally will do my best to abide by that discipline!

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 20:26, Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:


> 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>

> 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> wrote:

>>

>>

>>

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

>>> *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

>>> *Cc: *Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>,

>>> Darwin Costa <dc at darwincosta.com>, Arnaud AMELINA <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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>>>

>>

>>

>

> --

> Kind regards,

>

> Paschal.

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://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/20201019/51a3ccfd/attachment-0001.html>