Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:


Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Tue Sep 28 04:00:45 UTC 2021

So this confirms that the version previous co-chairs sent for ratification
was modified at the very last minute as "editorial changes" and never
discussed under the due process and why existis a appeal for that.


On Tue, 28 Sep 2021, 00:44 Owen DeLong via RPD, <rpd at> wrote:

> That was a prior version. The version which was submitted for ratification
> is reciprocal.
> Owen
> > On Sep 27, 2021, at 02:29 , Jaco Kroon <jaco at> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I for one am of the firm opinion that consensus has not been reached on
> > the policy being ratified, as also shown by the fact that other RIRs
> > have indicated it's not reciprocal (which was the main objection against
> > it).
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Jaco
> >
> > On 2021/09/24 02:43, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sep 23, 2021, at 16:10 , Noah <noah at> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi PDWG and CoChairs,
> >>>
> >>> I refer you to the attached document send by a representative of  the
> so-called Number Resource Soceity aka NRS to a good number of resource
> members.
> >>>
> >>> Specifically, pay attention to the point related to Inter-RIR transfer
> policy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>> 1.       Inter transfer policy that will allow one as a member of
> AFRINIC to be able to sell their resources to other RIR and to get value of
> their money. Policy allows organization who have unused IP4 address space
> or ASN to request transfer to a specific qualified recipient in another RIR
> >>> <snip>
> >>> Ofcourse the statement in the snip above is total bs.
> >> Out of context, it can appear that way, however…
> >>
> >> Your snip ignores the fact that the document in question is advocating
> for the board to ratify the policy.
> >>
> >> It is the position of the NRS (and many members of this community) that
> the proposal properly achieved consensus and should
> >> be ratified.
> >>
> >> This is a position which has at least as much merit as yours and is
> supported by the record.
> >>
> >>> As you may all remember, the PDWG launched a set of appeals to the AC
> sometime last year as a result of the former co-chairs mismanagement of the
> PDP process in regards to the draft proposal termed as "Resource Transfer
> Policy".
> >> I recall that some members of the PDWG launched a set of appeals and
> that somehow those appeals seem to have resulted in the board deciding to
> put their thumb heavily on the policy scales and start tampering with the
> appeals committee in extraordinary ways creating a strong backlash from the
> community and a great deal of suspicion. I do not recall a consensus call
> in the community around the idea of launching appeals and I do not recall
> the PDWG as a group taking any such action as a body.
> >>
> >>> As you know, a number of members always suspected that the proponents
> of that proposal had some ties with the Larus Organisation.
> >> This is an absurd statement. Yes, Larus supports the proposal. Yes,
> some proponents of the proposal have a variety of different connections to
> Larus in that some are customers of Larus, some are vendors that Larus buys
> goods and/or services from, some are friends of various Larus employees and
> contractors, some are recipients of fellowships from the Larus foundation.
> However, there are also Larus foundation fellows on record opposing the
> policy and there are many proponents of the proposal with no ties
> whatsoever to Larus.
> >>
> >> Your attempt to defame Larus by implication here is malicious and
> amounts to an ad hominem attack which is prohibited by the CoC for this
> list.
> >>
> >>> With the above background, I would like to categorically state to the
> PDWG that with TIME, all intentions and motives often come out.
> >> Will yours?
> >>
> >>> Most importantly, as a PDWG participant, I would like to know if the
> new lobbying being done by the NRS.HELP is inline with the PDP.
> >> First, the letter to which you are referring is not lobbying, it is an
> attempt to recruit stakeholders to join NRS.HELP as members of the
> organization in an effort to be a more multi-stakeholder organization.
> >>
> >> You are like the Americans that complain about the NRA, but don’t join
> it. The NRA is a membership organization with dues. If enough anti-gun
> Americans joined the NRA, they could reverse its position on gun control
> almost instantly.
> >>
> >> NRS.HELP is a membership organization that costs nothing to join. If
> you want to have a say in what NRS.HELP does, feel free to join. As a
> membership organization, if enough members want to push it in a particular
> direction, it cannot resists.
> >>
> >> Is the lobbying occurring at a PDWG meeting or on the rpd mailing list?
> Is the lobbying happening within the confines of anything governed by the
> PDP?
> >>
> >> What is your exact basis for implying that NRS.HELP recruiting is
> somehow subject to the rules of the PDP?
> >>
> >> IMHO, your call here would be similar to my attempting to asking if
> your activities in Nigeria are inline with US law. Who cares? US law has no
> jurisdiction in Nigeria and the PDP has nothing to do with the recruiting
> efforts of a Hong Kong NGO.
> >>
> >>> I would like to know if at all, the PDWG and its PDP is no longer
> useful and if resource members will now be determining policies NRS style
> and not the internet community through an open bottomup PDP.
> >> I think you have truly gone off the rails here. NRS.HELP is a forum for
> discussion. It is not a policy making body and it is not intended to be a
> policy making body.
> >>
> >> Yes, NRS.HELP will advocate for the positions and policies its members
> want, but when advocating, it will do so within the confines of the
> established policy development processes in the existing policy development
> fora.
> >>
> >> I must wonder where you got the idea that NRS.HELP is intended to be
> some form of alternative policy body.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> RPD mailing list
> >> RPD at
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list