[rpd] Resource Transfer Policy_Text revision

[Wijdane Goubi]

>

>

>

> Dear community,

>

> *> This proposal has been very controversial and had a reached 'consensus'

> according to the Co-Chais understanding despite the many protests from many

> people from this group.*

>

> This proposal has reached consensus because, again, it was deserved. The

> proposal took enough time to get discussed and it had solved all the

> concerns that were raised by the community.

>

> *> After the 'consensus' was declared in the PPM the proposal suffered

> significant changes in the text, some of them as put conditional by the

> Co-Chairs for the consensus, something really odd. To mention one of the

> changes the one that changes legacy resources status from one thing to the

> contrary of that. - These changes made after the PPM were never given

> enough time for the WG to discuss it properly. One of the points that

> changed about the Legacy Status had NEVER been discussed in the several

> months of discussion by the WG.*

>

> There was enough time, several months as you said to discuss what raises

> your concerns ,and yet nothing remains unsolved, to the point that would

> make the proposal problematic.

>

>

> *> During the Last-Call there were countless requests for this proposal to

> be put back into discussion again as clearly it never reached consensus*

>

>

>

>

>

> Why would the proposal be put back into discussion after it has reached

> consensus? That’s not how the pdp works. The authors were even

> understanding enough to keep listening to the community’s remarks after the

> consensus was reached, and work by them. We are in no position to keep

> wasting time on a much needed policy.

>

>

> >* After the Last-call the Co-Chais decision about this 'consensus' was

> appealed, twice.*

>

> It was appealed for non-valid reasons that you can go back to check in the

> relevant thread.

> >

> *Co-Chairs made something unprecedented after confirming the consensus

> brought the proposal back to Last-call. - During the first and second

> Last-call periods the proposal received at least 3 new versions, which some

> insist to call "editorial review" but change several and significant parts

> showing the proposal was not ready to progress and is been rush at any cost

> to pass.*

>

> If there is any reason for rushing the proposal to pass, it would only be

> to benefit the community which is in this case implementing this proposal.

> As for the changes no statement in the CPM forbids making editorial ones.

> The policy is still the same one, and editorial modifications were needed

> to solve a few misunderstandings and reciprocity issues.

>

>

> > *During the same period staff confirmed some of the RIRs, ARIN in

> specially did NOT have reciprocity to the text that supposedly reached

> consensus.*

>

>

>

>

>

>

> * - Still with the situation unknown the authors keep presenting new text

> revisions for the proposal confirming once more that the proposal was never

> ready to have any consensus declared and needed further discussion despite

> how much important it can be for the region.*

>

> I do not see how taking into consideration the community’s concerns and

> working on them can be looked at as rushing or forcing the proposal and

> considered as “the proposal is not ready to have any consensus”.

>

>

> > *These changes are called "editorial changes" but in fact are just

> newer versions which require time for the WG to discuss properly.*

>

> *Facing all this how can a proposal have any consensus declared with all

> this mess ?*

>

> There is no mess besides the one that is created by not taking enough time

> to read the new drafts and realize that they do not contain any significant

> changes but rather editorial ones. And that was and is still not forbidden.

>

> Cheers,

>

> wijdane

>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201104/a4b95100/attachment-0001.html>