[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

[lucilla fornaro]

Dear Daniel,

I agree with you and Co-chairs, it is time to start thinking and working
for the good of the community.

I constantly read attacks and accusations towards co-chairs and their work,
trying to undermine their authority and sense of community.
Cleary, it is not leading anywhere.  I also think that the Transfer Policy
followed the right procedure and no mistakes occurred from the Co-Chairs.

regards,
Lucilla

Il giorno mer 21 ott 2020 alle ore 02:43 Daniel Yakmut via RPD <
rpd at afrinic.net> ha scritto:


> Clearly, as responded by the Co-chairs let us stop attempting to railroad

> people in this community.

>

> I have always understood the responsibilities of the Co-chairs to

> constitute striking balance where possible, on matters (policies) under

> discussions, and in the process take decision. However I don't see the

> reasons for the sustained attack on the persons of the Co-chairs for doing

> their job.

>

> The premise for the last call on the Transfer Policy was, if the authors

> made amendments first. They did the corrections and last call was made . So

> clearly there was no changes made during the last call. I don't see where

> the Co-chairs erred.

>

> On Oct 20, 2020 3:16 PM, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>

> 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>

>> 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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201021/3bfd91ac/attachment-0001.html>