[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen]

+1

On 10/20/20 4:36 PM, Jaco Kroon wrote:

> 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

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>