Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[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-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list