Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy
Mike Burns
mike at iptrading.com
Tue Oct 20 17:49:06 UTC 2020
Hi Sami,
Points 2, 3, 4, and 10 of the post I replied to, which undergird the problem, all relate to the legacy issue.
It is the bone of contention, take it away and the constellation of problems related to moderators, last-call, appeals, etc. will go away, in my opinion.
The reciprocity issue has no relation to legacy and is editorial: "recipient must be an RIR member....".
I don't think I am diverging, instead I am simply saying the legacy issue and the editorial change are insignificant in the context of the need for this policy.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:06 PM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy
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.htm
>>>> l
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
More information about the RPD
mailing list