[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE]

Dear Sander and Community,

We would take my time to respond to you as you hold our equivalent seat in
the RIPE region;

As per the transfer policy, only about two or three issues were raised
during the last call.
1. The problem statement looks like a business problem statement:
Outcome:  The problem statement does not go into the CPM hence, it does not
matter

2. Issues with Legacy holders: This is a tricky one and there are no right
or wrong answers about it. Legacy holder remanning legacy holder,  some
feel is not fair, Legacy holder not remanning legacy holders some feel it
would be better.  On this issue, we have gone back and forward on it
because of the diverse views of the community even as co-chairs we hold a
diverse view on this because both have advantages and disadvantages.
Personally, I have had to change my view on this issue when I got a
superior argument but I have not allowed my personal view to have any
effect on the decision we take on this issue. The authors indicated that
they do not mind whichever way the community goes on this issue. Originally
on the proposal, they indicated "legacy holders should not remain legacy
holders" they were asked to change this and they also did. Therefore this
issue of Legacy holders can to be discussed separately more importantly
when there is no right or wrong answer on it and the authors have been very
flexible on this issue. The decision on this issue has been addressed in
relation to the transfer policy but it can still be amended if the
community agrees now or later in future. We just have to go with the
majority for now since no right or wrong answer from our view.  We see how
this goes.

Finally, on the issue of reciprocity, As far as we all know, the policy has
no reciprocity issue and if any is pointed out then it can be fixed. We
keep getting a  vague response regarding this issue and we cannot wait
forever on this.
 If anyone knows of any other issue raised that has not been fixed apart
from emotional issues, please let us know.
People kept on shouting about what is "Editorial" changes and what is
not,  *but
the word "Editorial" is not even in the CPM*. Therefore it is subjected to
a diverse definition. In this case, we as co-chairs elected by the
community has to step forward cos this is our role. To take decisions on
behalf of the community in situations like this. Unfortunately, some people
want to take over this role.   We have two co-chairs for a reason and am
sure we both cant be stupid. Some said we should follow the convention on
this issue, we said "*Ok no problem*", Unfortunately, when we reversed our
decision it was the same person that criticised us as if previous chairs
never had reason to reverse their decisions.

As far as we can see the main opponents of this proposal are those that
have a conflicting proposal and it is impossible for all three proposals to
pass. I hope they get this, We all love the community and should not think
some do more than the others.  We as Co-Chairs have to make a tough but
rational decision as to which of the three is most acceptable to the
community. I have explained this several times and no one
as brought forward a superior argument rather they keep chasing shadows, we
took the decision based on the proposal with the least number of objections
to it. More importantly, the authors have been very flexible in making
changes as suggested by the community.

We have consistently asked, Please tell us any issue that has not been
fixed with this proposal and rather than getting a direct answer what we
get is you broke the CPM. We ask again point us to the CPM we broke they
cant point us to any.

We understand that as shepherds for the community, we have to take tough
decisions and we are ready to do that as long as it is in the best
interest of the community.

My humble suggestion to the community is that we now have time to review
this policy which is still on the last call. *Let us spend our energy and
time to review this in the interest of the community and leave behind
personal and selfish issues and stop chasing shadows.*
Hence, we call on the authors of the proposal to start a new thread with
the proposed text and allow for a line by line discussion so that we can
put this behind us and address other issues that require the attention of
the community.
Thanks

Co-Chair PDWG


On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 9:33 PM Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:


> On 18-10-2020 12:08, dc at darwincosta.com wrote:

> > Dear Abdul,

> >

> > Can you tell us on what basis you declared rough consensus and

> > eventually consensus on this proposal only to comeback and reverse the

> > decision....

> >

> > Maybe I’m missing something and your clarification is much appreciated.

>

> This would indeed be very helpful. Abdul: please provide pointers to the

> messages on the mailing list where issues were raised and to the

> messages those issues were addressed. After all: that is the basis of

> consensus.

>

> Cheers,

> Sander

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>


-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal 
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal 
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201020/ace1e292/attachment.html>