<div dir="ltr">I agree with Owen an all of the items stated below.<div><br></div><div>Best Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>McTim</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:33 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Dec 3, 2018, at 14:54 , Gregoire Ehoumi via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-792296776185493471Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size:10pt"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:11pt;white-space:pre-wrap">Hi,</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">There is no provision in the curent PDP which mandates, updates/revisions to a proposal before it got presented at a PPM. The agenda was published and as expected, no one objected...here we see another incentive for PDP-BIS which defines a clear lifecycle of proposal?</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br class="m_-792296776185493471kix-line-break"></span></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Nobody is questioning this. Nobody (that I have seen so far) is objecting to the proposal being discussed at the meeting.</div><div><br></div><div>What is being objected to is the proposal being declared as having consensus and sent to last call when none of the outstanding objections from Dakar were addressed, no updates were made to the proposal, and a plethora of objections were raised at Hammamet, including some which were repeated from Dakar.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size:10pt"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I find it curious that a policy proposal which aims to improve resource usage, provide better accountability within an RIR ecosystem raises so much controversy. </span></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Perhaps this is because many of us do not believe that the policy will have a result that is at all consistent with the stated intent above (which, btw, does not entirely match the problem statement in the proposal itself).</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size:10pt"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Members sign RSA which bind them to such review, but when it comes to defining a community consensus approach to the review, it becomes stormy </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br class="m_-792296776185493471kix-line-break"></span></div></div></div></div></blockquote>The review in the RSA does not allow for any random party to force AfriNIC to initiate such a costly and burdensome process against any particular member without probable cause to do so. The proposed policy does.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size:10pt"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Are we afraid of enforcement of new policy and not of the RSA?</span><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote>There are significant differences between the RSA and the proposal. The proposal goes significantly further and eliminates several avenues for avoiding a costly and burdensome process which are left open in the RSA. The arguments against this proposal are not being made (to the best of my knowledge) by people who are hoarding resources and would not at the end of such a review be found to be in full compliance. However, the cost of the review process for any organization with a significant network is significant both in time and money.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this clarifies the reason for some of the objections and allows you to see the deep and meaningful flaws in the proposal as it currently stands.</div><div><br></div><div>Authors have claimed congruity in this proposal with the existing policy in the ARIN region. The policy in the ARIN region was not put forth to grant extraordinary additional powers of review to the ARIN staff. It was put forth to place strict limits on those powers. There are differences in this proposal which achieve the exact opposite of that.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size:10pt"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">--Gregoire</span></div></div><div style="font-size:10pt"><div id="m_-792296776185493471LGEmailHeader" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">------ Original message------</div><div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Ernest Byaruhanga<u></u><u></u></div><div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Mon, Dec 3, 2018 6:02 AM</div><div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>Nishal Goburdhan;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b>rpd;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><pre>Nishal,
> have there been any updates to this policy since the previous meeting.
No.
Version 6 was received on 10 April 2018, and no newer version thereafter.
More info:
<a href="https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details</a>
Ernest.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">
RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre></div>
</div>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>The 'name' of a resource indicates *what* we seek, an 'address' indicates *where* it is, and a 'route' tells us *how to get there*.</div>