Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen sami at marwan.ma
Tue Oct 20 17:06:06 UTC 2020




On 10/20/20 5:10 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hello,

>

> The legacy issue is immaterial.


You're diverging. That's not what's being discussed.


> The "missing dues" that wouldn't be paid by retention of legacy status have never been enumerated.

> ARIN has a larger legacy community than AFRINIC, if that were a burden I would expect ARIN's fees and dues to be higher than AFRINIC.

> However the opposite is true, AFRINIC fees are generally higher than ARIN's.

>

> The number of inter-regional transfers that have occurred with retention of legacy status is tiny, and none have occurred at AFRINIC.

> Nobody in the transfer market cares about retention of legacy status (or not).

>

> So in my opinion, derailing this proposal over this insignificant matter at this late date is unwarranted.

> Legacy status is something you can debate about later, and change the policy then.

> It's not something to hold back this important proposal over.

>

> Regards,

> Mike

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:50 AM

> To: rpd at afrinic.net

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

>

> +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

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>




More information about the RPD mailing list