[rpd] Last Call -Update of PDP AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03

Thu Jul 7 17:11:13 UTC 2022

Dear Jordi,
 See my comments in line

On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 11:09 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <
rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Hi AK,
>
>
>
> Responding below, in-line.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El 4/7/22, 11:08, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to object to this policy reaching a consensus for a number of
> reasons.
>
> 1. Section 3.4.5. Additionally malfunction of the Board
>
> A. I disagree with this section because I do not think the board should
> have any additional function. The PDWG should not be subjected to the board
> in this manner. The Board members are also members of the community and
> should be free to propose policies just as any other person and not by
> using additional extra powers. There is already a provision in case there
> is an emergency.  Therefore this seems like an abuse of office. The
> exceptional emergency is not defined and anything can be adjudged to be an
> emergency.  All you need is for two friends to shout an emergency and it
> becomes an emergency.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] If you read the bylaws, you will find that those already assign to
> the Board those functions, but with a lot of lack of clarity. That’s simply
> wrong, and it means the bylaws are encroaching the community. The way to
> resolve that is either: 1) to fix the bylaws (which is out of scope for the
> PDWG), 2) ensure that the PDP provides that authorization to the Board (as
> done in other RIRs) at the same time ensuring that they Board follows also
> the PDP if an urgent proposal is required and adopted by the Board.
>

[AK] I understand the conflict with the bylaw but as you mentioned there
are other ways to fix this. Fixing this way is like putting the board above
the community. This should never be.

>
>
> B "In the event that such Policy Proposal doesn’t reach consensus, it
> will not be further enforced or implemented, however, any actions taken in
> terms of the policy up to the non-consensus determination, will remain
> valid."    I totally disagree with this. This has grievous consequences.
> In addition to my objection in 'A' I think this clause makes it worse. How
> can such a policy stand? On what basis? So what this means is that the
> board can take an illegal action and it would stand.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] Again, please read bylaws. This is already there. I’m just
> formalizing it from the perspective of the PDP.
>
[AK] I understand the conflict with the bylaw but as you mentioned there
are other ways to fix this. Fixing this way is like putting the board above
the community. This should never be.

>
>
> 2. Section 3.1.1: This section is too vague. There are so many scenarios
> that could occur and given one example is not just the way to go cos there
> are many possibilities. The section also refers to the way other RIR reach
> consensus or Rough consensus without saying which RIR in particular cos
> there are different ways in which consensus is reached by other RIRs. For
> example, ARIIN takes actual votes into consideration.  then are we saying
> even when all agree on an issue it would still be "rough consensus" because
> the document says Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP must be
> interpreted as “rough consensus”.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I disagree that it is vague. It is a very good summary of RFC7282,
> because we know people doesn’t read it or recall all the details. In fact,
> this is used in another RIR and has demonstrated that this definition has
> facilitated the work for the latest years. ARIN is a totally different PDP,
> and no, it is not based on voting, I think you misunderstood something
> there. What we use in all the RIRs, same as in IETF is “rough consensus”,
> however we are used to say “consensus” for short.
>
[AK]  I never said ARINis based on vote but they take vote into
consideration. I agree with you on rough consensus but in some of our
peculiar cases we need consensus.

>
>
> 3. Section 3.3 . A part of the section says "If necessary, taking into
> consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection, AFRINIC may formally
> verify the identity of the persons forming part of the PDWG." Are we
> saying that if not necessary AFRINIC should forgo a fundamental human right
> to data protection? are we saying AFRINIC can breach the fundamental law on
> personal data protection if not necessary?  This is not possible. The right
> of personal data protection MUST be protected and not just if necessary. it
> is not optional.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] On the other way around. What I’m saying is that **taking into
> consideration** (so respecting it, validating the info, but not providing
> it to others).
>
[AK] For section 3.3 The language as written does not tally with your
explanation. based on my understanding of english what you have written is
the opposite of what you have explained. if you say If necessary that means
it would only be taking to consideration when necessary.

>
>
> B.  Also it reads "Typically, most of the work is carried out through the
> Resource Policy Discussion (RPD) mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net) and the
> AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (PPM)." why do we need typically here? is
> there any other way to carry out the work?
>
>
>
> [Jordi] It has been clear during the pandemic that we may need other
> means. So stating “typically” keeps the door open to anything required in
> the future, without changing what we currently do.
>
[AK] Also I do not see what other options are available using the mailing
list covers the pandemic period I don't see any other alternative
Therefore Typically,
most of the work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion
(RPD) mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net) and the AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings
(PPM)." therefore typically is not necessary.

>
>
> 4 Section 3.4.1 : "Any PPV must be discussed on the RPD List for a
> minimum of 8 weeks and maximum, the period of time required so it can be
> presented in the PPM. Consensus for a Policy Proposal can be determined
> only once it has been presented and discussed in the PPM." This sentence
> does not make any sense to me ..minimum 8 weeks And maximum what? Something
> seems missing here.  then i do not even understand the remaining part of
> the sentence.  only once ? what does that mean?   I does not have any
> meaning to me. I read it several times to be sure am not thick.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] The maximum is self-defined: a new proposal must be presented in
> the meeting. If you submit a proposal 10 weeks before the meeting, then it
> will be 10 weeks, because the need to be presented before consensus can be
> determined. If you look at the timelines on my presentation, it is very
> clear there.
>
[AK) Then the maximum period is not necessary in the document since t can
be anything. leaving it that way would lead to confusion to anyone reading
it without your explanation and you would not be there to always explain

>
>
> 5. Section 3.5.3 " the proposal talked about"rough consensus" in 3.1.1 now
> it is talking about "consensus" . I was thinking section 3.1.1 say no more
> use of consensus.  Am I wrong?
>
>
>
> [Jordi] As said before, we use “consensus” along the text, for short of
> “rough consensus”. Often we do that in many “legal” or “normative”
> documents. We define a “short” for a longer expression to make it easier
> across the rest of the text.
>
[AK]   OK I agree but it leadsto confusion

>
>
> 6 Section 3.4.4. This section is very dangerous. Are we now saying board
> members are not part of the PDWG? Why would the board allow for a PPV to
> reach consensus and now veto it? Why if the board has an objection to the
> PPV then it must be done when it is being discussed on the mailing list.
> The board are also part of the PDWG and they have always contributed. The
> definition of PDWG does not exempt the board. The board cannot be superior
> to the community.  This section is simply saying the board is superior to
> the community. that the board can wait until when the policy gets to it and
> then reject it. Why must they wait till that stage. is there any reason for
> this? If the board has an objection to a policy it must be stated
> clearly with alternatives when it is being discussed it cannot be at the
> end. That is a waste of time for the community.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] Again, please read the bylaws. It is already there, just making
> sura that the PDP is in sync, because we can’t enforce a bylaws amendment.
> We have been there already, do you remember when you declared consensus in
> one of my proposals and the Board decided not to ratify it? The Board has
> the obligation to protect the organization, of course, without encroaching
> the community.
>
[AK]  Yes the board has an obligation but it possible to have a board that
would not follow the rules and would want to circumvent the rules by
interpreting the rules differently. The past board has attempted this with
the help of GOVCOM. Infact the board attempted to extend the seats of some
members.  If the community diagrees then it should be reversed.

>
>
> 7. Section 3.5  As we have clearly seen now that the Board itself can be
> part of the controversy. If the board is now allowed to appoint all members
> of the AC then it is like a judge in its own case.
>
> I give you a possible scenario based on this proposal. the board submit a
> proposal as an emergency, the proposal goes through and some object to it
> and decide to appeal. then the same board now appoints an appeal committee
> what do you think would happen to that case? I can give more examples.  We
> need to be realistic. The  AC should be appointed by the community and
> it must be a standing committee such that it cannot be
> reconstituted when an appeal is submitted. that way it would not be a
> subjective committee.
>
>
>
> [Jordi] I’m not saying that all the AC members are “elected” by the AC.
> I’m saying that the Board is responsible for ensuring that there is an AC.
> If you read the complete proposal, and you see my presentation, I’m not
> entering in this proposal in the “elections” part, because I believe this
> is more complex, and require a completely different proposal (for any kind
> of elections).
>
[AK]  ok but we need clearer language. You wont be there to always explain

>
>
> 8.  I think this proposal needs more work.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> AK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:47 AM PDWG Chair <vincent at ngundi.me.ke> wrote:
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
>
>
> This is to announce the official start  of the last call period for the
> proposal(in line with the provisions of the CPM).
>
>
>
> Update of PDP
>
> AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d3
>
>
>
> The proposal reached rough consensus at the AFRINIC-35 Public Policy
> Meeting held 1-2 June 2022 in hybrid format. This last call period will run
> for a period of three weeks and close on 14th July 2022. The community is
> encouraged to conduct  a final review of the proposal in this period.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vincent Ngundi and Darwin Da Costa
>
> *AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs*
>
>
>
>
>
> [Francais]
>
>
>
> Cher PDWG AFRINIC,
>
>
>
> Il s'agit d'annoncer le début officiel de la dernière période d'appel à
> propositions (conformément aux dispositions du CPM).
>
>
>
> Mise à jour du PDP
>
> AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d3
>
>
>
> La proposition a atteint un consensus approximatif lors de la réunion de
> politique publique AFRINIC-35 qui s'est tenue les 1er et 2 juin 2022 dans
> un format hybride. Cette dernière période d'appel durera trois semaines et
> se terminera le 14 juillet 2022. La communauté est encouragée à procéder à
> un examen final de la proposition au cours de cette période.
>
>
>
> Sincères amitiés
>
>
>
> Vincent Ngundi et Darwin Da Costa
>
> *Coprésidents du PDWG*
>
>
>
> [Arabic]
>
>
>
> عزيزي AFRINIC PDWG ،
>
>
>
> هذا للإعلان عن البداية الرسمية لآخر فترة دعوة للمقترح (بما يتماشى مع أحكام
> CPM).
>
>
>
> تحديث PDP
>
> AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d3
>
>
>
> وصل الاقتراح إلى إجماع تقريبي في اجتماع السياسة العامة AFRINIC-35 الذي عقد
> في 1-2 يونيو 2022 بتنسيق مختلط. ستستمر فترة الاتصال الأخيرة هذه لمدة ثلاثة
> أسابيع وتنتهي في 14 يوليو 2022. يتم تشجيع المجتمع على إجراء مراجعة نهائية
> للاقتراح في هذه الفترة.
>
>
>
> أطيب التحيات
>
>
>
> فنسنت نغوندي وداروين دا كوستا
>
> *الرؤساء المشاركون PDWG*
>
>
>
> [Portuguese]
>
>
>
> Caro AFRINIC PDWG,
>
>
>
> Isto é para anunciar o início oficial do último período de chamada para a
> proposta (de acordo com as disposições do CPM).
>
>
>
> Atualização do PDP
>
> AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d3
>
>
>
> A proposta alcançou um consenso aproximado na Reunião de Políticas
> Públicas AFRINIC-35 realizada de 1 a 2 de junho de 2022 em formato híbrido.
> Este último período de chamada será executado por um período de três
> semanas e terminará em 14 de julho de 2022. A comunidade é incentivada a
> realizar uma revisão final da proposta neste período.
>
>
>
> Atenciosamente
>
> Vincent Ngundi e Darwin da Costa
>
> *Copresidentes do PDWG*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-resolve-email-portal-login-problems-for-staff-and-students>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>

-- 
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal 
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal 
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk 
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-resolve-email-portal-login-problems-for-staff-and-students>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20220707/683a2682/attachment-0001.html>