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
Wed Oct 21 13:10:18 UTC 2020


Hi Mike,

The policy has undergone a change. So it must be reviewed. For that, it
needs to go back to the list. Whether the part that's been changed is
relevant to some or not, is irrelevant. If a part of a policy is
irrelevant, it must be removed. But that's also a change. Either way it
goes back to the list.

Reviewing policies in last call is a bad idea. It sets a bad precedent
where policies are modified in the last minute without proper discussion.

Last call is for a last round of humming, let's not make something else.

HTH

Regards,
Sami




> On Oct 20, 2020, at 18:49, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

>

> 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