<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><font face="Ubuntu">Good
morning from
Africa, Jordi
</font></p>
<font face="Ubuntu">
</font>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Please read
comments inline.</p>
<br>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/05/2019 18:06, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi all,
I've sent my raw notes about this policy proposal on 29th November 2018.
I've looked around for email exchanged on this, and just to be safe, re-read the policy proposal and tried to re-assess my comments, so in some cases I've done some editorial changes, but basically everything remains the same.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">It is bizarre that
you missed co-authors mail sent on February 18, 2019 [1]
</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
My main point is still that even if this "transplantation" of the RIPE process (which again, in my opinion is one of the best PDPs), to AFRINIC, is increasing the complexity, instead of facilitating the process which is one of the reasons for the lack of participation, and adding some mistakes, with break it.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Are you saying the
current PDP is so complex and causing lack of participation ? if
yes, can you prove your statement ? Some of us believe that, this
light PDP adopted in 2011 has shown its limits and leading us to
the
chaotic process which is chasing people away. You seem to miss
important aspects of problems this community is addressing with
the update of the PDP. I therefore wonder if the rest of your
reasoning below is relevant.
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Here is what I believe is still not resolved:
1) Definition of rough consensus is incomplete and erroneous. The participants may be newcomers, they need to have a place to read a complete description as part of the PDP.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Can you clarify
this
point ?
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
2) The distinction among minor and major objections doesn’t make sense if you understand correctly the definition of rough consensus. This adds unnecessary complexity to the process.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Can you define
complexity in this context ? Can you also define what you mean by
“critical technical objections” in your definition of Consensus ?
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">See <a
href="https://afrinic.net/fr/library/policies/2535-simple-update-of-the-pdp">https://afrinic.net/fr/library/policies/2535-simple-update-of-the-pdp</a>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">
How and when do you admit an objection as “technical” and how do
you définie the
severity “critical”? Rough consensus is well defined in
rfc7282. Section 3.4.3 of the proposal describes techniques and
mechanisms to reach rough consensus. Minor and major objections
are
classifications of objections to lead discussions to closure and
ease
consensus evaluation
.</p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not a way to determine consensus from the list.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Each phase has its
timeframe and cochairs make decision from Mailing list discussions
to move proposal forward. Only proposals which pass discussion
phase
and review phase are presented at the PPM to seek consensus and
activation of the concluding phase.
We have agreed to give cochairs
2 weeks after the meeting to declare consensus, taking into
consideration other factors including earlier discussions on
mailing list. ( section 3.4.3) Section 3.7.1 of varying process
allow cases where consensus is only determined from mailing list
discussions. </p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
4) Contradictory, consensus is not unanimity, even if not everyone consents to the decision of the group, consensus may be declared.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Contradictory???
Here is what section 3.4.3 says: “Consensus is achieved when
everyone consents to the decision of the group. The decision may
not
be everyone’s first preference, but is acceptable to all
participants.”
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
5) Let the chairs to decide. Providing so much details to them in the PDP means they can’t “move” on their own. Community elected them, community need to trust them. If they make a mistake in a decision, there is a last call and there is an appeal process.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Which details? The
proposal is very clear on Co-chairs role and responsibilities in
deciding about consensus. The approach to consensus is critical
and needed
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
6) Phases stated are complex and unnecessary. Looks like trying to copy the RIPE PDP but with broken things. Will difficult the community participation.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">It is obvious and
you can see it, the proposal is not just a copy of RIPE PDP. If
the
proposed lifecycle of the policy proposal follows RIPE model, you
can
see clearly that the proposal has more provisions, taken from
other
PDPs and IETF processes. Copying part of the “best PDP” is a
bad thing to do according to you. You seem to insinuate that this
community is not mature enough to adhere to this kind of PDP. If
there are some broken things, let us fix them.</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
7) The PDP can’t avoid having competing proposals, it is good for the process and the community to investigate several choices. It is a way for an author or a group of them to block the community progress. If I've an idea and send a proposal and the community don't like it but I'm not improving the text along the discussions, a possible way out is an alternative proposal.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Competing proposals
have not brought constructive outcomes for our community and we
all
concur to that. To address the problem you raised above, section
3.5.1.1 has the following provision “Once adopted by the working
group, the initiator(s) grant(s) all rights to the working group
and
the proposal becomes a community document.” </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">So if initiators
refuse to improve a proposal as agreed by the working group, the
decision of the future of the proposal is left to the Working
group.
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
8) The WG should not decide against a policy proposal if is in scope of the PDP (so adoption phase doesn’t apply).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Adoption phase is
meant to ensure a proposal falls within the scope of the PDP and
is
solving a real problem. So Adoption phase applies and avoid
pushing discussions on solutions while there is no consensus on
problem statement .</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
9) End of discussion phase brings subjective documentation of the process, biasing the community.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Can you elaborate ?
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
10) Impact analysis should include “more”, but just objective inputs, and not bias the community.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">more than the
followings ? </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">• AFRINIC Ltd’s
understanding of the proposed policy </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">• Impact on the
registry and Internet Number Resources </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">• Impact on
AFRINIC Ltd’s operations/services </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">• Legal impact
We
trust staff to be objective in their analysis and community has
the
right to question and discuss the staff analysis
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
11) What happens if the timing with the review phase and the next meeting doesn’t match?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">As we all follow
the
timing of the current PDP, instigators of proposal and the
community
are supposed to adhere and follow the new PDP with its timing </p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
12) In the Concluding phase, it is not clear why a proposal should go back to either the discussion or the review phase.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">The decision is
left
to co-chairs as it depends on the severity of issues brought
during
the concluding phase which nullify the consensus obtained after
the
review phase and the PPM. </p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
13) Implementation waiver from who? The implementation timing is up to the staff and should be informed in the impact analysis.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Implementation
timing is up to staff, but we set some timeframe to avoid abuse.
section 3.8 says
“The implementation date should be less than six
months after ratification of the proposal by the board unless a
waiver is requested.”
</p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
14) In the RIPE PDP we made last September a change, as there was a mistake in the process, following a policy proposal that I’ve authored, regarding the non-consensus after the review phase. I think you missed that point …</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">can you elaborate
on
the change ? </p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
15) There is no point in asking for 3 individuals for an appeal. If a single community member wants to appeal a PDP decision and can't, I'm convinced he has the right to go to courts, because it is not inclusive.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Actually the
proposal is requesting that an appeal be filed if only supported
by 3
persons who participated in the discussions. A single community
member appealing against a PDP decision and can’t obtain the
support of 2 or 3 people who participated in the discussions ? so
we
allow anyone to game the PDP by filing fanciful appeals? </p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Regards,
Jordi
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">Hope it helps.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%">[1]
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/008981.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/008981.html</a>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 100%"><br>
</p>
Komi Elitcha on behalf of co-authors
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }</style>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A7E5DD50-FE84-46FC-87FE-106639A789F8@consulintel.es">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
KE
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/">https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>