Search RPD Archives
[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