[rpd] Appeal against the consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04 (Resource Transfer Policy)

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi Gaby,

On 2020/10/22 17:00, Gaby Giner wrote:

> 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.


Just to be clear:  I'm not saying there were any violations, nor am I
saying there weren't.  On this matter I've not done sufficient
research.  I am saying that I disagree with the decision around
consensus.  And I am saying that the intention of section 3 of the CPM
according to my reading is that changes should not be done during the
final call.  But I also stated, as per you, that there are no clauses
specifically allowing, nor prohibiting changes.

I do not think that the chairs acted in bad faith, I do believe that
they did what they believed to be the best and right course of action, I
just disagree with their decision that there was consensus: simply
looking at the amount of noise that has been generated even before
ratification tells me there was not, and still is not, consensus..

I do agree that some level of overhauling may be required to the process.

I think it would be good to let the emotions cool down before that is
done, such that it can be approached rationally.

I do think we need to focus right now on the transfer policy.


>

> 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.


I hear you and I can understand your reasoning.  I can even appreciate
that you want it as fast as possible.  It is here that I disagree, I'd
rather spend another two to six months and get it right.  This is
entirely possible.  Amendments at a later stage won't be "simple"
because those that exploit the introduced loopholes will vehemently
oppose such policies changes.  Not to mention that it would be biassed
and unfair either to those that have already transferred, or those that
didn't.

My personal reasoning is that the current policy for intra-RIR should
simply be adjusted as per my suggestion to also permit inter-RIR
transfers.  Keeping all other requirements EXACTLY AS IS.

Either way, there should be NO CHANGES to intra-RIR transfers.  And the
tabled proposal does make changes there.

Kind Regards,
Jaco


>

> Thanks, Gaby

>

>

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:01 AM Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz

> <mailto: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>

>     > <mailto: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>

>     >     <mailto:vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj

>     <mailto:vassangbewotto at benintelecoms.bj>>

>     >

>     >                    vivien at intnet.bj <mailto:vivien at intnet.bj>

>     <mailto: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>

>     <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>

>     >     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>     >     <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>

>     >

>

>     _______________________________________________

>     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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201022/84bf4a69/attachment-0001.html>