[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Fernando Frediani]

The thing is so absurd that now we have the justification based that 
"Editoral word" doesn't appear in the CPM, therefore in the 
interpretation of one of the chairs it can just be used to change the 
text anytime in any way at convenience. They call it "diverse 
definition". Perhaps this is yet another sign that there is not enough 
experience to conduct the business of CPM and so why so many mistakes 
have been made.

Been elected by the community is not a mandate to do things the way they 
feel like and to make up stuff that may not have the expected words in 
the CPM.
The idea of using Editorial changes as normal changes to try make the 
text achieve consensus is so out of touch that has been mentioned as 
unprecedented many times by several people here before. Everybody used 
with these forums in any RIR and other organizations know very well what 
editorial changes are for and definetelly is not to make a proposal try 
to reach consensus. Trying to force it to be something else will not work.

Legacy status issue doesn't even deserve discussion of its merit at this 
point because it was changed after the PPM. This is a major change in 
the proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT be considered just a a 
simple "Editorial change". This changes one of the fundamental points o 
the proposal, at last minute, given no time for discussion for the 
community, and worse: this was something that had NEVER been mentioned 
before in months and months of discussion.

There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their decision to 
be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.

Fernando

On 20/10/2020 04:29, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

> Hi AK,

>

> I’m not sure if you followed the thread in ARIN.

>

> There it was clearly said by the CEO, John Curran, that the actual 

> version is not reciprocal.

>

> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.html

>

> I don’t think it is a matter of just one paragraph rewording. I 

> already told this to the authors. There are several conflicting 

> paragraphs that need to be reworded to make the complete text coherent.

>

> You say that the main opponents are the other proposal authors, of 

> course, it can’t be other way, because everybody is convinced, they 

> are right.

>

> However, you’re missing that despite that, I’ve been trying to help 

> Anthony and Taiwo (they can confirm), even if I think that the way 

> you’re handling this is not correct according to the PDP (and this 

> brough me the additional problem of some other people very angry with 

> me – they don’t understand that I’m trying the best for the community 

> not for the authors a, b, or c).

>

> So those are two separate issues (helping to improve the proposal and 

> doing it in a way that is according to the PDP without any trace of 

> “PDP illegality”).

>

> Regarding the legacy there is a wrong working in the text. The intent 

> was to keep the same situation as we have now for Intra-RIR, otherwise 

> is not fair with existing transfers and you need to add some more text 

> to somehow compensate them. So the text should be “5.7.4.3 Incoming 

> transferred legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy 

> resources”. This way you keep the reciprocity/compatibility with all 

> the regions but at the same time, you keep the actual status in 

> AFRINIC compared with the existing Intra-RIR policy (incomming works 

> for both inter and intra – we did the same in LACNIC).

>

> At this point I’m more and more convinced that, unless a new version 

> is processed in this “last-call” extension, it will not work, but on 

> the other side, I’m convinced that those are not just editorial 

> changes and it means is not the right way to handle this.

>

> I shall insist that the right thing to do at this point is to declare 

> no-consensus and ask the board to call in December (sufficient time to 

> prepare for it, and to have a new version, or even a new policy) for a 

> specific policy meeting just for this proposal and concentrate the 

> list in discussing all the issues and a text that we all can agree. 

> Again is not a matter of authors it is a matter of having the right 

> thing for the community.

>

> I could even suggest that we all the authors of the 3 proposals get 

> together and find an agreement on this in a single text good for all. 

> At least we must try. You know that I already suggested this before 

> the Angola meeting.

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

> El 20/10/20 8:21, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng 

> <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> escribió:

>

> 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 

> <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>> wrote:

>

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

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

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

>     <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/>

>

> _______________________________________________ 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201020/d4919ca9/attachment-0001.html>