[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi Abdul,

With all due respect to both yourself and Fernando.  I personally think
you're both right, and both wrong.

Please just stop and read Abdul.

1.  Yes, it's crazy/absurd that it's come to this.

2.  No, the change was made at/after the PPM and straight into last
call.  So whether or not this was made prior to last call or during last
call is actually irrelevant.

3.  The first opportunity many of us had to see this legacy change was
during last call.

4.  Many of us acknowledge the need for change to the legacy no longer
clause but we don't agree with the change as has been taken to last
call.  Many alternatives that would also achieve reciprocity has been
proposed.

5.  I have actually re-read CPM section 3 last night, and have already
highlighted that changes are neither permitted nor prevented, but I
believe some common sense here should prevail in that from the CPM it's
plain that the intention is for final review, and that any concerns
raised that's valid should have the proposal go back to discussion.

6.  I disagree that your actions are duly justified, but I can see from
your perspective why you believe this to be the case.

7.  This is however irrelevant as there is plainly not consensus on a
policy proposal in last call, and this has been the case from the moment
it went to last call, so when you took it to ratification, there is
absolutely no way this could have been in line with the CPM process, and
if it was, then I would propose that we revisit that and fix that too.

8.  You had the sense to revert the ratification decision.  Now we're
asking you to have the sense to realise that there isn't consensus and
bring the proposal (along with the other inter-RIR transfer policies)
back to discussion.

9.  I'm not sure what the conditions was, but either the conditions were
wrong, or the implementation thereof was wrong.  Specifically:

10. Retaining legacy status is all good and well on outbound transfers
(Afrinic can't prescribe to other RIRs), but we don't want to have
legacy status retained on intra-RIR or inbound transfers.  Jordi pointed
out that if any intra-RIR transfers of legacy space has happened the
change would be detrimental to those that have transferred, and the
change is thus a complete reversal of previous policy.  I for one,
speaking on behalf of my employer, have no interest in paying fees when
legacy holders get most of the same services for free.

Yes, I do wish we could finalize this, I don't think anybody is
disputing that we urgently need this.  But in spite of how much it's
going to hurt to need this and not have it, having it in a non-working
state is even worse.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

On 2020/10/20 16:11, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:

>

> Dear Fernando.

>

> See my comments inline

>

> 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.

>

> I think it is your justification here that is absurd.  Yes, it is true

> that it does not appear in the CPM or do you want to rewrite the CPM?

> and I think this is a typical example that you do not have enough

> leadership experience to understand that: been elected to a position

> of responsibility comes with the fact that one has to take decisions

> on behalf of the community.  Be clear we never made a single mistake

> on this issue and all our actions are duly justified.   

>

> 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.

>

> Been elected by the community is enough mandate that we have the

> confidence of the community and when there is a disagreement to step

> in line with the CPM and not using /Fernando's/ idea. Read the CPM

> clearly more especially section 3.6.  

>

> 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.

>

> Be clear, The changes in regards to the legacy status was done before

> going into the last call. Please read again the condition for the

> proposal to go into the last call. It was made very clear. Provided

> those changes are made then the proposal goes into the last call.

> Therefore it was before the last call.  Please don't try and

> manipulate or create confusion here. If you have any objection to the

> proposal state them and stop this cheap blackmail. 

>

> There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their decision to

> be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.

>

> It seems that you are now not just attempting to take over as the WG

> chair, but also the Appeal committe chair and member. 

>

> Good luck to you on that 

>

> Fernando

>

> Co-Chair

>

> PDWG

>

>

> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM Fernando Frediani

> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

>

>     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

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

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

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

>>

>>

>>     **********************************************

>>     IPv4 is over

>>     Are you ready for the new Internet ?

>>     http://www.theipv6company.com <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 <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>

>

>

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201020/fc48ef34/attachment-0001.html>