[rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space – Draft 2).

[Arnaud AMELINA]

+1 @Alain

Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 21:42, ALAIN AINA via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> a
écrit :


>

> Hello PDWG

>

> It sounds like a good season to pay attention to the AC work. I revisited

> the recent decision of the AC regarding the abuse contact policy proposal.

>

>

> https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/20201127-abuse-contact-proposal-appeal-report.pdf

>

> Some comments and questions came to mind... see below

>

> 1- issues list

>

> The AC said that the cochairs also considered the issues below.

> —-

> a. Staff analysis on how the draft policy affects legacy holders seems not

> conclusive, especially on how it affects legacy holders

>

> b. The policy proposal doesn't state what will be the consequences ifa

> member fails to comply

>

> c. Why there is need to create the abuse contact when there is no

> consequence for not providing the abuse contact

>

> d.Abuse contact email issue with GDPR in Whois database

>

> e. No proper definition of the term abuse

>

> f. To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the duty of

> AFRINIC

> __

>

> While the AC recognized that community members who spoke during the PPM

> raised some of these issues, it did not say who and when the other issues

> were raised

>

> 2-on the facts presented by the appelants

>

> The AC said nothing about  the reliefs sought by the appeal.

>

> The AC said nothing on the grounds of the appeal as exposed by the

> appellants.

> https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/appeal-abuse-contact-policy-v1.pdf

>

> The AC failed to explain why the arguments  and justifications of the

> appelants regarding the issues above were not satisfactory.

>

> 3- on its proceedings

>

> In the statement below, the AC did not say which objections with

> sufficient concern,  some of its members referred to and how these issue

> were not addressed satisfactorily

> -

> Whereas two (2) members of the Committee observed that either the

> objections raised were addressed or out of the policy's scope, two (2)

> members noted that the declaration of consensus under consideration in this

> appeal is guided by Section 3.4.2 of the AFRINIC PDP in the CPM where it is

> observed that there was significant opposition to the policy during the PPM

> at which community members raised objections with sufficient concern. One

> (1) member of the Committee was neutral

> -

> What does it mean for a committee member to be neutral?

> How come he does not  find that either the “objections raised were

> addressed or out of scope” or that there were “objections with serious

> concerns”? What does it mean for a judge to be neutral in this case?

>

> 5- on the decision

>

> ——

> XII. Final assessment of Appeal Committee on the Appeal

> The Committee could not agree on whether the co-chairs' determination on

> non- consensus should be overturned.

>

> XII. Conclusion

> The Committee did not reach agreement to overturn the decision of the

> Co-chairs as appealed

> ———

> The above decision is not inline with the section 3.5 (point 2) of the PDP

> and section 4.8 of the ToR which imposes that ruling of the AC are based on

> the facts put before it and that based on these facts, the AC to decide

> whether the PDP was followed or not and annul cochairs decisions if the PDP

> was not followed.

>

> How shall the WG interpret this indecision of the AC?

>

> On the general, I found that the AC not following its ToR in the

> proceedings, decisions and reporting.

> The report, I referred to here does not contain the AC’s assessment of the

> facts put before it  and it’s ruling on the grounds of the appeal raised by

> the appelants.

> (Section 4.7 of the ToR)

>

> It is more about the AC members personal assessment on the decision made

> by the cochairs. That would be like a retrial when the AC is a review,

> appeal, on technicalities and tell if procedure followed or not

>

>

> HTH

>

> —Alain

>

> > On 22 Jan 2021, at 12:48, wafa Dahmani <wafatn7604 at gmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Community,

> >

> > This is to inform you that the Report on Appeal against the

> non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI

> ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space – Draft 2) and

> the minutes have been published following the links below:

> >

> > https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/20210121-rpki-roa-appeal-report.pdf

> >

> > https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals

> >

> > Best Regards

> > Wafa Dahmani

> > Chair of the Appeal Committee

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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/20210126/3e5375f9/attachment.html>