[rpd] [PDWG-Appeal] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI R

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Owen, all,

I've made similar questioning about the situation and the Board didn't clarified.

Further to that, I've asked the Board to clarify about their interpretation of bylaws 11.4. I must insist on that. We need to have a very clear view on that.

This is important because according to that one, the "emergency" for modifying the procedures, ToR or PDP/CPM, doesn't seem to be correct.

As Fernando suggested in a previous email (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012633.html):
"Jordi, article 11.4 is completely out of the PDP.

Even if this exists in the AfriNic bylaws the Board of Directors is not authorized by the community to adopting policies without the prior consensus of the community. You are preferring something that is illegal."


And in the same thread, Owen said:
"The board has the power to set the policies by which AFRINIC administers resources. The board delegates that power to the PDWG through the PDP which still requires that the board ratify any policy proposed for adoption by the PDWG."

Also, Owen indicated (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012631.html):
"FWIW, a plain english reading of the words there limits the boards authority to do so to only those policies regarding the management of internet number resources and would not include the management of the policy development process or the policy development working group itself.

One has to stretch that rule quite far in order to extend it to envelop either, let alone both of those other categories which is what would be necessary for the board to appoint co-chairs."

Interestingly, now Owen says:
"If you don’t like the rules or feel that the rules do not fit the situation, then there are defined processes
    by which they can be modified. Those processes have rules and exist to protect the rights of the
    community as well as the board. The board has full power to modify the ToR or the CPM on an
    emergency basis if needed, so there really is no excuse for not doing this properly."

We are all very confused about all this and it means we need a clear signal from the Board about their interpretation and then we may need to address the problem from the PDP and may be the bylaws must be amended to recognize one way or the other, but not lack of clarity on the interpretation and the Board using that depending on each case ... which is what is happening already.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/3/21 8:21, "Owen DeLong via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:

    Could the AFRINIC Board please explain this? The AC should not be under a gag order or prvented
    from continuing its processing of the appeals on its docket (which are in progress as specified in the
    ToR).

    Also, under the existing rules, it is my opinion that the AC should either reject this request to reconsider
    or accept it in a timely manner. In the event they accept it, then this is an appeal that remains in progress
    and is no longer complete and they should proceed with it despite the resignations as specified in the
    ToR.

    We really must start following the rules we have established and not having the board and others
    making up random new rules as they see fit.

    If you don’t like the rules or feel that the rules do not fit the situation, then there are defined processes
    by which they can be modified. Those processes have rules and exist to protect the rights of the
    community as well as the board. The board has full power to modify the ToR or the CPM on an
    emergency basis if needed, so there really is no excuse for not doing this properly.



    Owen




    > On Mar 2, 2021, at 1:21 AM, paulos at sdnp.org.mw wrote:
    > 
    > Diren,
    > 
    > Please note that the Appeal Committee has been gagged by the Afrinic Board Chair and
    > hence is currently unable to handle such requests.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > 
    > Paulos
    > ========================
    > Dr Paulos Nyirenda
    > 
    > ------- Forwarded message follows -------
    > Date sent:	Mon, 01 Mar 2021 15:13:39 +0100
    > From:	diren at vanilla.co.za
    > To:	pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net
    > Subject:	Re: [PDWG-Appeal] [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
    > 
    > 
    > Good day! As you asked, I´ve collected to you several necessary
    > docs and
    > attached them to the email. If you really will want to find some info,
    > you know, whom to ask.
    > 
    > 
    > On 2021-02-07 20:48,  wrote:
    >> Could the Appeal Committee respond to this, and reconsider the work
    >> they are doing, as I just explained in my previous email, taking the
    >> inputs of the Recall Committee?
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> 
    >> Jordi
    >> 
    >> @jordipalet
    >> 
    >> El 26/1/21 12:14, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>
    >> escribi:
    >> 
    >> In case the Appeal Committee is not subscribed to the RPD list.
    >> 
    >> Waiting for your response.
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> 
    >> Jordi
    >> 
    >> @jordipalet
    >> 
    >> El 26/1/21 11:50, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
    >> <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> escribi:
    >> 
    >> Hi Wafa, all,
    >> 
    >> First of all, dont take anything that I say personally, but in
    >> general I see a total failure of the Appeal Committee and lack of
    >> compliance with the PDP.
    >> 
    >> Your judgment must be on the grounds of a correct decision of the
    >> chairs.
    >> 
    >> In taking such decision the Appeal Committee must be based on facts,
    >> never on personal opinions (from the community or the chairs or the
    >> Appeal Committee itself). Being based on objective facts means
    >> checking if what the policy proposal said, what were the objections,
    >> and if those objections *are real*, not just illusions or lack of
    >> knowledge or untrue or personal preferences.
    >> 
    >> If the Appeal Committee doesnt have the right knowledge, as I
    >> already said I believe was the reason the chairs took the wrong
    >> decision, then they should ask for help to the staff or third
    >> parties.
    >> 
    >> Any objection to a policy proposal must be duly justified and that
    >> justification not addressed by the authors or other community
    >> members.
    >> 
    >> Any policy proposal that has objections, the objections MUST BE
    >> VALID, even if the objections come from 99% of the community. This
    >> is not democracy, is not number of votes or voices, is based on
    >> non-addressed objections. It is not based on untrue objections. None
    >> of the objections to this policy proposal were valid. They are
    >> mostly based on lack of sufficient knowledge, and never lack of
    >> knowledge can be a VALID reason. Again, not only the authors, but
    >> many other expert community members have confirmed that those
    >> objections are invalid.
    >> 
    >> A policy proposal never can be based in I dont like it. You need
    >> to state I dont like it because it breaks this RFC (for example).
    >> And even in that cases authors can respond showing why the
    >> perception of breaking this RFC is wrong (so addressing the
    >> objection will nullify it). Policies are not based on personal
    >> preferences, but in what is the best *technically correct choice*
    >> for the community.
    >> 
    >> Last but not least, the Appeal Committee seems to be working as a
    >> democratic body, which is wrong. ALL THE PDP is based in consensus
    >> approach. The Appeal Committee must also follow that approach,
    >> otherwise, it is breaking the ICP-2, which is the higher mandate of
    >> how the policy making process works. If 3 members of the Appeal
    >> Committee believe that the opposition was correct, they should
    >> *demonstrate with facts why* and this must be done using the
    >> responses provided by the authors and community to those objections.
    >> 
    >> If 3 members of the Appeal Committee believe that any of the
    >> objections has not been addressed, they need to *demonstrate why*,
    >> taking in consideration the community and author responses, and
    >> those must be crystal clear in the report, which is not the case.
    >> 
    >> The Appeal Committee must respond to the authors, in a consensus
    >> based approach, not a democratic one to all what the authors
    >> confirmed in the Appeal Document.
    >> 
    >> Note also that there is a paragraph in the Appeal Report that
    >> completely kills the PDP and demonstrates that the Appeal Committee
    >> HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THEIR JOB AT ALL:
    >> 
    >> The 3 members who observed significant opposition to the policy,
    >> however, also observed that it is the PDWG that builds consensus and
    >> decides whether issues of opposition are addressed to the
    >> satisfaction of the PDWG which is where the PDP requires that
    >> consensus is assessed by the Co-Chairs.
    >> 
    >> The PDP states clearly that the Appeal Committee need to review the
    >> chairs decision. If the chairs have considered as VALID objections
    >> that OBJECTIVELY ARE INVALID, it is clear that the Appeal Committee
    >> must declare the lack of consensus declaration is invalid, and
    >> consequently, the proposal reached consensus.
    >> 
    >> Lets go the details and I ask the Appeal Committee to respond to
    >> each of the objections included and refuted in the Appeal Document:
    >> 
    >> 2.1.   a. Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to
    >> an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table
    >> 
    >> Following RFC6483, section 4 (A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0
    >> ROA) is an attestation by the holder of a prefix that the prefix
    >> described in the ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be
    >> used in a routing context) resource holders, as part of the RPKI
    >> system already can and actually do this (example IXPs), in fact they
    >> do. This has been explained several times, including my presentation
    >> at the PPM. The proposal is just adding light about actual facts
    >> regarding this aspect, not changing anything, so it cant be a valid
    >> objection for the policy proposal.
    >> 
    >> 2.2.   b. Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new
    >> allocation doesnt match
    >> 
    >> This is not true, again a misunderstanding about how RPKI works. The
    >> authors and other several community experts have discussed this in
    >> the list. If you get number resources from AFRINIC, normally you
    >> dont announce them in minutes, or hours, or even days. There is
    >> some work to do in your network, you need to do changes in systems
    >> and routers, and this takes hours, and normally you cant touch
    >> systems during the day, but only in maintenance windows in the
    >> night. That means that if AFRINIC revokes an AS0 certificate, it
    >> will be done in a few minutes during the day. So even if the
    >> worldwide caches take hours to see that, there is no negative
    >> impact.
    >> 
    >> In addition to that, this it can be improved thru implementation, as
    >> I already explained also in the list. The staff could tentatively
    >> release from the AS0 the resources that they plan to allocate once a
    >> week or every couple of days, etc. For example, when they are
    >> processing a request, and they are pending on final documentation,
    >> the RSA signature for new members, or the review with the member of
    >> the justified need. Many other examples can be provided about how to
    >> do it. The proposal doesnt go into any of those details, because
    >> the understanding is that those are too depth operational, and in
    >> fact the staff could decide an approach during the implementation,
    >> and based on experience improve it afterwards.
    >> 
    >> The conclusion is that there is no such matching, neither
    >> unmatching, so this cant be taken as a valid objection for the
    >> proposal.
    >> 
    >> 2.3.   c. Other RIRs dont have a similar the policy therefore, it
    >> can not be effective
    >> 
    >> All the policies have different discussions in different RIRs at
    >> different times. This policy is already available (reached consensus
    >> and implemented) in APNIC and LACNIC (reached consensus, being
    >> implemented). There is work being done in ARIN and RIPE (the first
    >> proposal was not accepted), not yet public. So, this is untrue if
    >> you look at all the RIRs.
    >> 
    >> The effectivity of a policy is not only related to how many RIRs
    >> implement it. In this case, any RIR having this policy is actually
    >> stronger than the other RIRs not having it, in terms of routing
    >> security. It shows the commitment of that RIR about the RPKI usage
    >> with all its possibilities. It facilitates the operators in the
    >> region and outside the region to identify in a simpler and automated
    >> way, what prefixes should not be in the routing tables and
    >> consequently allow them in an opt-in basis, to discard them. So, it
    >> is in the other way around, any RIR with this policy could be said
    >> that it is more effective (even if it is not probably the right
    >> wording for this topic) that the others. We should rather say that
    >> a RIR with this policy is offering a more secure view of their
    >> routing information.
    >> 
    >> In addition to that, there are policies in AFRINIC which arent
    >> available in other RIRs. That, clearly, doesnt make them invalid
    >> (or in other words, this is an invalid objection  is good that all
    >> RIRs do the same, but is not always the case, or not at the same
    >> time), clearly this shows that this cant be taken as a valid
    >> objection against this policy proposal.
    >> 
    >> 2.4.   d. This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally
    >> implemented, which causes additional stress
    >> 
    >> This is almost a duplicate of the previous one. Absolutely not. We
    >> can add that the way we suggest the staff, and they confirmed, with
    >> an independent TAL protects, as intended by the proposal, the
    >> resources of the RIR implementing it, not creating any issues in
    >> what is done in other RIRs to any operator, so it cant be taken as
    >> a valid objection against this policy proposal.
    >> 
    >> It is difficult to understand what it means additional stress in
    >> this context, but clearly, it will be in the other way around. As
    >> more RIRs implement it, less manual work in terms of filtering, is
    >> needed to be done by operators, if they opt to use the AS0 ROA
    >> service from the RIRs that have implemented it. So, it is not
    >> correct and thus, not a valid objection.
    >> 
    >> If the question is about if this policy should be a Global Policy,
    >> the response has also been provided in the discussion. Ideally, a
    >> Global Policy will be only able to protect the IANA unallocated
    >> resources, but not the resources that IANA already allocated to each
    >> RIR. In fact, Im already working (when time permits it will be made
    >> public) in a Global Policy for that, but this is irrelevant versus
    >> having a policy at every RIR (or a few of them), so again,
    >> objectively not a valid objection.
    >> 
    >> 2.5.   e. Validity period:   if members decide to implement it, is
    >> it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too
    >> long?
    >> 
    >> This doesnt make sense, at least not as worded. This is not about
    >> recovering space, no relation. It is the unused space hold by
    >> AFRINIC, regardless of if it was never allocated/assigned, returned
    >> by members, or recovered by AFRINIC. Once more, not a valid
    >> objection.
    >> 
    >> 2.6.   f. How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to revoke
    >> it (chain/ refreshing )?
    >> 
    >> This looks the same as 2.2 above. It doesnt matter in practice, if
    >> it takes minutes or hours or even days. Community and staff provided
    >> some facts about this, just to cite a couple of them:
    >> 
    >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html [1]
    >> 
    >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html [2]
    >> 
    >> 2.7.   g. What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an
    >> address in error?
    >> 
    >> What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA without an address
    >> already allocated to members?
    >> 
    >> Exactly the same if the existing RPKI fails, and thats why there
    >> are monitoring systems in place and as reported by the staff impact
    >> analysis, this proposal will ensure that the monitoring is improved,
    >> so it is actually helping on the right direction, not in the other
    >> way around.
    >> 
    >> Further to that, because the systems of operators have caches, it is
    >> all depending (for the existing TAL and for the new one implemented
    >> with this proposal) on how much time it takes to AFRINIC to resolve
    >> the error and the specific configuration of the operators and if
    >> they actually drop invalid prefixes or they only create alerts,
    >> trigger some processes, etc. Note that RPKI doesnt force the
    >> operators to drop the prefixes even if they are using RPKI, there
    >> are different ways to take advantage of this.
    >> 
    >> This proposal doesn't change that, it is provided as an opt-in
    >> service and consequently it is not a valid objection.
    >> 
    >> 2.8.   h. It also might affect the neighbours and involves
    >> monitoring of unallocated spaces
    >> 
    >> It is not clear if neighbours here is referring to BGP peering ones.
    >> 
    >> The same monitoring that right now is done AFRINIC for
    >> unallocated/unassigned spaces could be improved with this proposal.
    >> AFRINIC already, today, needs to make sure that they get alerts if
    >> unallocated/unassigned space appears in the routing tables, because
    >> that may imply that a member may be violating the RSA, bylaws,
    >> policies, etc.
    >> 
    >> Exactly the same as for operators connected to Internet with BGP.
    >> The proposal allows them, as an opt-in service, to improve if they
    >> wish, the automation of all that, and to use the service in the way
    >> they decide. The proposal is not forcing operators any specific
    >> usage for the service, it is entirely at their own
    >> decision/discretion.
    >> 
    >> This proposal ensures that the service is improved so, hijacking of
    >> unused space is less prone to occur, thats the purpose of the
    >> proposal and RPKI, increase the routing security, without making it
    >> mandatory for any operator. Consequently, once more, this cant be
    >> considered a valid objection.
    >> 
    >> 2.9.   i. Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet
    >> to pay dues
    >> 
    >> According to AFRINIC bylaws and RSA, AFRINIC has the obligation to
    >> avoid members not paying to stop using the resources, so they are
    >> available to other members.
    >> 
    >> It will be unfair and discriminatory to other members not doing so,
    >> and thats the reason, even if we dont have this proposal, AFRINIC
    >> could at any time, following the bylaws and RSA, do whatever
    >> actions, including legal and technical ones, to make sure that
    >> unallocated, or unassigned, or returned, or recovered resources are
    >> not used. As part of those actions, AFRINIC could even ask in courts
    >> to stop routing those resources, even to other operators. It is
    >> AFRINIC duty, practically will probably not make sense in terms of
    >> the cost (unless a major hijacking of AFRINIC resources occurs).
    >> Most probably just the cooperation among operators, without any
    >> legal requirement, will make that happen. So, this proposal doesnt
    >> change that in the sense of adding to AFRINIC any new prerogative
    >> because already have that right and duty regarding the responsible
    >> use of the resources only to the allocated/assigned parties and in
    >> compliance with the legal bindings.
    >> 
    >> To further explain this, if a member decides to stop paying,
    >> AFRINIC, following legal bindings, will follow a procedure to try to
    >> fix it, and if it doesnt succeed, will remove whois data (which in
    >> turn will cause the removal of route objects that depend on them),
    >> RDNS (which means the address space becomes in general unusable),
    >> etc.
    >> 
    >> Clearly, once more, this cant be considered a valid objection, on
    >> the other way around is a fundamental AFRINICs right and duty.
    >> 
    >> I urge you to respond to each of those objections, accepted by the
    >> chairs to declare the lack of consensus, that the authors and other
    >> community members DEMONSTRATED with OBJECTIVE information, are
    >> invalid.
    >> 
    >> Again, please, Appeal Committee members, respond OBJECTIVELY AND
    >> BASED ON FACTS, NOT PERSONAL PREFERENCES. The report MUST contain
    >> detailed demonstration of why the Appeal Committee (not individual
    >> members) say each of those objections has not been addressed, while
    >> the authors and community believe otherwise.
    >> 
    >> This is what we expect from an Appeal Committee, to OBJECTIVELY
    >> review what the chairs objserved, when the Appeal Document clearly
    >> demonstrated that it is invalid and consequently the chairs took a
    >> wrong decision, based on personal preferences of community members
    >> or lack of knowledge, or other not objective or untrue facts.
    >> 
    >> Regards,
    >> 
    >> Jordi
    >> 
    >> @jordipalet
    >> 
    >> El 22/1/21 13:59, "wafa Dahmani" <wafatn7604 at gmail.com> escribi:
    >> 
    >> 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.p
    >> df
    >> 
    >> 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
    >> 
    >> **********************************************
    >> 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
    >> ********************************************** 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.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> 
    >> Links:
    >> ------
    >> [1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html
    >> [2] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html
    > ------- End of forwarded message -------
    > 
    > <-><prepared-35.zip><->_______________________________________________
    > 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.