[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[Wijdane Goubi]

Hey all,
I believe that it is very important to explain/interpret the CPM in a way
that can take us a step further towards implementing a policy that would
only benefit the community and I think that Changes should be made
depending on the faced situation which does not make it a CPM violation.
Regarding the co-chairs election, it was done based on several qualities
that the co-chairs should have, such as fairness and objectiveness. After
the election, and as Abdulkarim mentioned, the chairs are in a position
where they should take decisions for the sake and good of the community
Regards,
Wijdane

Le mar. 20 oct. 2020 à 16:13, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>
a écrit :


> 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>

> 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

>>

>>

>>

>> 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>

>> 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>

>> wrote:

>>

>> On 18-10-2020 12:08, 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

>> 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> 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/20201021/e31a9ccd/attachment-0001.html>