Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal against the consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04 (Resource Transfer Policy)
Gaby Giner
gabyginernetwork at gmail.com
Thu Oct 22 15:00:52 UTC 2020
Hello Ekaterina, Jaco, Frank, all,
My main contention with this (and this has become increasingly clear) is
that the CPM clearly needs some overhauling because of a lack of
specificity. Despite that, however, I think the interpretation of the CPM
must always be towards the community's benefit, with the Co-chairs
interpreting it as close as possible. Strictly speaking, I did not see any
CPM violations regarding the policy revisions (also because of the lack of
clauses to be violated), but consideration should also be given due to the
number of community members speaking out against the supposed "violations"
of the chairs.
It would be prudent to have a policy that answers the community's immediate
need rather than delaying addressing the need because of technicalities.
This is easier to amend than dealing with problems/deficiencies that arise
when we don't have a stopgap (even the barest ones) measure in place. The
conflict arises when a part of the community wants an almost perfect policy
at the cost of time versus those who want to address it immediately and
reform it once it is in place. I personally want the second option because
a policy in place can be easier examined, and the faults in vivo are
addressed with reforms rather than hypothetical guesses in the DPP stage.
We also have to bear in mind that we can't fit EVERYTHING inside one policy
simultaneously. At the end of the day, we want a policy that answers the
need of the community the best, but not a policy that addresses the need ex
post facto, especially if we can prevent losses beforehand.
Thanks, Gaby
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:01 AM Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> inline...
>
> On 21/10/2020 18:25, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:
> > Dear Alain,
> >
> > First of all, you say that the changes made by the authors during the
> > last call are not editorial changes and therefore cannot be accepted as
> > per the PDP. Yet nowhere in the CPM this is stated explicitly.
> >
> > In this appeal you also stated that the need for some policy arose as
> > early as 2015. The solution to this problem has been dragged out for
> > over 5 years and now that we have a functional proposal you are coming
> ^^^^^^^^^^ functional in *your*
> opinion
>
> > up with excuses that are insignificant in the context of the need of
> > this policy.
> ^^^^ I think you wanted to say "a policy" because the previous
> sentence talks about "some policy".
>
>
> > The changes done to the Resource Transfer Policy technically do not
> > violate the CPM, as the text does not state that only editorial changes
> > are allowed.
> ... but in the the spirit and understanding of many here. nevermind.
> 1. Technically the text does not any changes are allowed (others have
> shown this).
> 2. more importantly: Technically, this last call period is here for a
> purpose (do you agree?), and that is to give opportunity to mailing list
> members to voice objection to the conclusions at the meeting.
> I hope you can see that this is exactly what is happening.
> You should now argue that co-chairs should ignore all discussions during
> last-call.
>
> > In addition, nowhere in the CPM it states that the chairs
> > are not allowed to propose changes that reflect the concerns of the
> > community.
>
> do you mean "whole community" - in general consensus?
>
> [snip]> To be fair, I do understand some of the concerns you raised in your
> > appeal, but I believe that passing this policy now would be much more
> > valuable than dragging this process for many more years. The progress
> > made on this policy is very important and I think it is high time we
> > thought about the benefit to the community above the subjective
> > interpretations of the PDP.
>
> Is this a good time to ask what the benefit to the community is (or will
> be)?
> I sure believe that some PDWG members will benefit, because they profit
> from IP transfers.
> But I prefer these not to be counted as "community benefits".
>
> Thanks,
> Frank
>
>
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Ekaterina
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:45 PM Vivien ASSANGBE WOTTO
> > <vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj
> > <mailto:vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Committee Members,
> > Me, Vivien A. W , I took part in the discussion.
> > I completely support this appeal
> >
> > ---
> > Ensemble / together ……
> >
> > Cordialement,
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> >
> > G. Vivien ASSANGBE WOTTO
> >
> >
> > BÉNIN TELECOMS INFRASTRUCTURES SA
> >
> > DPM / SGI / Centre IP
> >
> > Tel: 00229 90 09 68 29 - 00229 21 14 98 58
> >
> > email: vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj
> > <mailto:vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj>
> >
> > vivien at intnet.bj <mailto:vivien at intnet.bj>
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> >
> > Le 20-10-2020 17:52, ALAIN AINA a écrit :
> > > Dear PDWG Appeal Committee Members,
> > >
> > > Please find attached, an appeal against the consensus
> determination on
> > > proposal AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04 (Resource Transfer Policy) for
> your
> > > consideration.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > —Adeola A. P. Aina
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> > 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/20201022/65d833f6/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list