Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy
Fernando Frediani
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 02:26:37 UTC 2020
Nobody asked for an extension of Last-call.
People asked the proposal to be brought back to discussion and the PDP
mandates for newer versions.
Fernando
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 23:17 lucilla fornaro, <
lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear John,
>
> Saying that the mailing list and the meetings follow two different levels
> of discussion is not completely right. There is not a strict division and
> even if some members do not ACTIVELY participate in them (or one of it),
> they can get access to both meetings and mailing list. Everyone gets access
> to the same info, it is up to us to participate or not. The point is, the
> last call ended with a consensus! Some members did not want to accept it.
> As a consequence, they proposed the appeal, and even if I am against it,
> they are free to do what they feel is appropriate.
> Somehow, now objections seem to focus only on the process, forgetting
> almost completely the policy.
>
> However, even if it is clear that we can have different arguments and
> opinions, it became -too- common to repetitively and without apparent
> reasons reject co-chairs authority and knowledge, and discuss every
> decision trying to make them weak.
> Some members asked for an extension of the last call, and once again, when
> co-chairs allowed it they rejected their decision.
> In my opinion, it is appropriate to talk, in some cases, about
> "undermining" and "sabotaging".
>
> Lucilla
>
> Il giorno gio 22 ott 2020 alle ore 01:51 John Hay <john at sanren.ac.za> ha
> scritto:
>
>> Dear Ekaterina,
>>
>> Can I maybe try to describe why/how our process came to be? The community
>> that are active in developing AFRINIC policies, can be divided in two
>> groups, one group is active here in the mailing list. A second group is
>> active at the meetings. There is a big overlap, but there are some people
>> only active here and some others only at the meetings. So the process that
>> developed, was that new policies or changes would get developed on the
>> mailing list. Once they are mature and seem to have consensus there, it
>> would be taken to the next meeting. If consensus could not be reached, it
>> had to go back to the mailing list. If consensus could be reached, even
>> with changes, it could go to last call. Last call gave the mailing list
>> group the chance to see what the meeting group did and decide if they are
>> still willing to give their consensus to that. If they were not happy with
>> it, it had to go back to development. This way both groups had to get to
>> consensus on the same unchanged policy before it could be ratified.
>>
>> If you do not do it that way and the policy can be changed during last
>> call, what is the point of getting consensus at a meeting? Those people
>> will have given their consensus to something different than what gets
>> ratified.
>>
>> PS Please refrain from using words like "undermine" and "sabotaging" to
>> describe people that do not think like you on this topic.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:40, Ekaterina Kalugina <kay.k.prof at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I agree with Mike. The edits done do not change the essence of the
>>> policy, but rather make sure it is functional and compatible with other
>>> RIRs.
>>>
>>> At this point, all the objections seem to concern the process and not
>>> the policy itself. And these objections are not even properly justified.
>>> Even if in other RIRs it may be different, the changes done do not violate
>>> the AFRINIC CPM.
>>>
>>> We all agree that this policy is necessary. And now we finally have a
>>> proposal that is fully functional. I see no viable reason to undermine all
>>> the progress achieved in the development of this policy. Passing this
>>> policy now would be much more valuable to the region than dragging it on
>>> who knows how many months.
>>>
>>> Let us stop sabotaging this important development by insisting on that
>>> it violates some subjective interpretations of the PDP.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Ekaterina
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 16:12 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem lies in the details:
>>>>
>>>> All the other RIRs have explicit PDP text to allow editorial changes in
>>>> the last-call. AFRINIC doesn't have it (that's why I explicitly included
>>>> that in my PDP update proposal).
>>>>
>>>> I can't agree with anyone that think that those changes (editorial)
>>>> should be allowed while the PDP doesn't explicitly mention it.
>>>>
>>>> There is a clear exception: a typo or grammar mistake. In this case it
>>>> is clear that should be corrected, but look how we did in AFRINIC *always*:
>>>> *in the meeting itself during the proposal presentation* not afterwards,
>>>> not in the last-call. So, the consensus is determined *with those changes
>>>> done*.
>>>>
>>>> Let's look this from a perspective of a country parliament doing laws.
>>>> How it works?
>>>> 1) The government or parties make a law proposal.
>>>> 2) It is discussed, there may be different versions, some of them may
>>>> be voted at some point, they may fail, new versions, etc., then the last
>>>> one (our last-call) goes for voting to the plenary.
>>>> 3) Once it is accepted, then *that text* and *only that text* goes to
>>>> the official journal.
>>>>
>>>> If there is even a misspelling, it should be published as it was
>>>> presented before the voting. CHANGES!
>>>>
>>>> Here we don't have voting, we have consensus, but the rest of the flow
>>>> is the same.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jordi
>>>> @jordipalet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> El 21/10/20 16:02, "Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>> escribió:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/21/20 2:44 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>> > Hi Sami,
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks for your input. I agree with what you have written, but
>>>> the devil is in the details.
>>>> > Change to some degree is allowed in last call, in my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Change in grammar, wording... sure ! In meaning, no.
>>>>
>>>> > If the change is immaterial, as this one is, I think the correct
>>>> move is to advance the policy.
>>>> > I say this having witnessed the difficulties in moving policies
>>>> to implementation status at AFRINIC.
>>>> > In the light of these difficulties it is unreasonable for me to
>>>> give up the hard-won progress in exchange for what to me is a quibble about
>>>> something unimportant that can be changed later if necessary.
>>>> >
>>>> > We simply disagree on a few things. The importance of getting a
>>>> policy in place, the materiality of the legacy wordage, and the propriety
>>>> of the process regarding consensus and changes in last call. Maybe I think
>>>> the policy is more important than you do, or you think adhering to proper
>>>> policy development is more important than I do. There are valid arguments
>>>> on both sides.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think we have both made our points clear.
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> > Mike
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen <sami at marwan.ma>
>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:10 AM
>>>> > To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>>>> > Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer
>>>> Policy
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.htm
>>>> >>>>>> l
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> <
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.ht
>>>> >>>>>> m
>>>> >>>>>> 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
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201021/42168c92/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list