<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>{Warning & apologize :-)
you might found it tl;tr}<br>
</p>
<p>Hi all,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 6/23/2019 à 11:55 AM, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo Car";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.HTMLconformatoprevioCar
{mso-style-name:"HTML con formato previo Car";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML con formato previo";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EstiloCorreo22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EstiloCorreo23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:946232779;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1401869232 67764241 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1506440724;
mso-list-template-ids:1882747010;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:36.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1759404277;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1063147024 67764241 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251 67764239 67764249 67764251;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Hi Sylvain,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Again
thanks for your inputs. Comments below in-line.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 22/6/19
11:16, "Sylvain BAYA" <<a
href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">abscoco@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
[...]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border-top:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">CPM section
3.4.1 : «[...]The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC
to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal or
other), of the impact of the draft policy proposal.[...]»<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">...i think we must follow our
rules or change them if they appear to be broken somewhere.
Right ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">There are two things here. One is the
policy manual and the other one is the internal AFRINIC
operational procedures.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Yes of course, i mean i <b>*expect*</b> the "<span
lang="EN-US">internal AFRINIC operational procedures</span>" to
folow the CPM (Consolidated Policy Manual). Am i wrong ?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If you read the message
from Dewole on the thread you referred to (</span><a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009033.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span lang="EN-US">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009033.html</span></a><span
lang="EN-US">) it clearly stated that this is the procedure:</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<span lang="EN-US"></span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Ok i have read it again carefully, thanks for have pointing it
to me.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What i understand, from the explanation of Dewole, is that :</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* The Chairs and the Staff found an arrangement regarding the
production and publication of impact analysis reports ;</div>
<div>* This <b>*agreement*</b> was concluded by them to simplify
the process (PDP) and the procedure (Operations) ; </div>
<div>* The Staff has accepted to provide (in due time) an impact
analysis for every versions of all the policy proposals in
discussions ;</div>
<div>* The Chairs will no longer have to request again for a
specific impact analysis report when needed ;</div>
<div>* We have a kind of automated sub-system.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...my conclusions in correlation with the facts you provided
below :</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+ The Chairs have got a willing|desirable arrangment with Staff
about impact analysis publication but ;</div>
<div>+ The Staff has proved to be unable to provide impact analysis
for all the versions of the policy proposals in due time (they can
certainly explain this fact) ;</div>
<div>+ The Staff are <b>*always*</b> providing impact analysis
report for a random set of policy proposals and not for all
versions of a given policy proposal ;</div>
<div>+ Sometime they have failed to provide very needed impact
analysis reports at time ;</div>
<div>+ An analysis (yours) for all the policy proposals shows that :
the actual procedure the Staff is using to provide Impact Analysis
report looks as producing random results (and this is not better
than the normal Process [PDP] as provisioned by CPM section 3.4.1)
;</div>
<div>+ The <b>*agreement*</b> obtained by the Chairs is proven to
be flawed, particularly by your analysis generously (thanks)
provided below ;</div>
<div>+ By this <b>*agreement*</b>, the Chairs have lost|abandoned
(involuntarily for sure) their responsibility in regard of the
impact analysis report requests ; </div>
<div>+ It seems to be an opaque procedure because community was not
aware before the recent mail from Dewole (<b>*Varyance*</b> [CPM
section 3.4.1] is a good|useful tool, but we deserve a bit of
transparency and to be timely informed of such a <b>*emergency* </b>[and
<b>*temporary*</b>] decision).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:dotted
windowtext 3.0pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:dotted
windowtext 3.0pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span
lang="EN-US"></span>CPM section 3.6 : «3.6 <a
id="Varying-Process" data-mce-empty="1"> </a>Varying the
Process
<p>The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of
an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of
some provision of this document is required.</p>
<ol>
<li>The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working
Group Chair.</li>
<li>There must be an explanation about why the variance is
needed.</li>
<li>The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be
less than four weeks.</li>
<li>If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must
be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.»</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I prefer that we follow (or openly amend) the CPM section
3.4.1, and hopefully we will have more chance to receive the
requested impact analysis reports in due time.</div>
<div>Perhaps we should also pass through a new policy proposal to
ameliorate something in regard of that...not sure what's useful to
do but :-/</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre><span lang="EN-US">“<span style="color:black">For a while now, the procedure (as part of lessons learnt) has been for <o:p></o:p></span></span></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black" lang="EN-US">staff to provide their
analysis of draft proposals once they are <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black" lang="EN-US">received so it's not
really on the author. Co-chairs and staff have long <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black" lang="EN-US">agreed that this makes
sense.”</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>...IMHO it was a very good deal for the community, but it is
now proven to badly functioning since then. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I guess we want to fix. Then what to do ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your comments on the disponibility of impact analysis reports
for all the actual policy proposals seems to confirm a broken
procedure ; where the PDP is not applyed (with this agreement the
Chairs are not doing their duty : ask for a given <b>*needed*</b>
impact analysis report).</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:black" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">I fully agree with the
rest of the text, that mentions that if a new version is
sent, for example one week before the meeting, it may not be
feasible. However, my point is that, proposals that have
been received several weeks before the meeting AND had
already a previous impact analysis, AND the authors just
updated the proposal to comply with the impact analysis, in
my opinion, results in a few hours (not to say minutes) to
rework the previous impact analysis.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
...useful insights for the Staff, i think ?
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Chairs and staff know,
that at least in my case, if I get an email from them with
questions about my proposal version or impact analysis, I do
my best to respond in a matter of few hours, often during
the next hour or so, unless it falls during the time I’m
traveling or sleeping, but most of the time I respond within
the same day. I don’t break during the weekends, don’t do
holidays or take days off, and average sleep 5 hours per
day, so it is difficult to believe that I’m not responding
“quickly”, unless by chance an email is classified as spam
and filtered (I don’t recall it happened with emails from
staff and co-chairs, but just in case).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Also take the
considerations from SM about the existence of similar
policies and impact analysis in other RIRs, which may be at
least a starting point ( </span><a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009036.html"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span lang="EN-US">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009036.html</span></a><span
lang="EN-US">).</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>...thanks Jordi.</div>
<div>You must know that you are helping me a lot to quickly
accomodate to the PDP and particulary some hidden (but don't get
me wrong it's just about facts we are still discussing), and <b>*policy-free*</b>,
practices in this PDWG ? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I learnt and concluded two things while reading, again, the
mentioned SM's mail carefully :</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+ To ameliorate the, timely, delivering of impact analysis
reports, we need (amongst other actions) to figure out : "How long
does it usually take from the time the PDWG is asked to provide
feedback [...] to when the analysis of the proposal is available
? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You did a bit of analysis, of the situation, below and it was
really instructive to me. Thanks once more. Hope we use it to fix
the issue.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>+ While "all the analysis work is being left to Afrinic Ltd."
Are we expecting to have an optimal PDP ?
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So, if we analyze *<b>all</b>*
the policy proposals on the table (so no just “defending” my
own position, but also other authors of proposals):</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Thanks for sharing your thoughts (analysis) about the
disponibility of impact analysis for all the policy proposals on
the table.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hopefuly it will help the staff to quickly provide the missing
ones...</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2019-GEN-001-DRAFT01:
published on 17<sup>th</sup> May. This is the only
proposal, which is quite complex, that I agree may take
longer than 4 weeks for the impact analysis, even if there
is already an existing impact analysis in other RIRs.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2019-IPv4-001-DRAFT01
and AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT01: published on 13<sup>th</sup>
May. However, those proposals *<b>share</b>* the same
impact analysis as the one already done for
AFPUB-2018-GEN-003-DRAFT01 (1<sup>st</sup> November 2018)
and they are *<b>simpler</b>* than that one, take only on
IPv4 (instead of IPv4+IPv6+ASN), impact analysis already
available also from other RIRs.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2019-V6-001-DRAFT01:
published on 14<sup>th</sup> May. Impact analysis already
published for the previous version. It is true that this
policy proposal is a bit more complex than the previous
versions, but I think it was clear in the meeting (where
it reached consensus), that the staff don’t have any
“impacting” considerations, so what they said in the
meeting, could had been published before.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT02:
published on 11<sup>th</sup> April. My god! How come we
can’t have in more than 2 months an impact analysis, which
was already published for the previous version, while this
version is actually precisely, much simpler, considered
the impact analysis to correct all the points, and *<b>reached
consensus</b>* during the discussion in the list? I’m
tempted to appeal the chairs decisions on it
(no-consensus), because if we had the impact analysis and
the chairs, really considered the list, there was
overwhelming support and, in my opinion, none of the
comments in the meeting was actually sufficiently
substantiated as something *<b>against</b>* the arguments
in favor. I’m not going to do so, because I support the
previous co-chairs decisions, and unfortunately (and this
is BIG BIG BIG issue), some of the inputs of the people in
the room where from folks that either a) they are not in
the mailing list (I already suggested them to join and
participate), b) some folks, which are in the list, which
are *<b>actual</b>* authors of other policy proposals,
didn’t brought their inputs in the list, they have
actually brought them in the meeting, just for the *<b>insane
sake of overthrow this proposal</b>* and exclusively for
their own interest (as I’m not supporting their own policy
proposals. I those co-authors of other policy proposals
are really looking for the well of the community, they *<b>MUST</b>*
participate in the list *<b>not only</b>* to defend their
own policy proposals, but also to improve the ones from
other authors (as I do). If they provided those inputs in
the list, then I could have made a new version in time for
resolving their issues and reaching consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2018-GEN-004-DRAFT02:
published on 18<sup>th</sup> April. Received substantial
inputs in the list, but it was withdrawn for author
personal reasons (I know the details, but I will suggest
him to explain to the list ASAP). However, despite having
a previous impact analysis, we got nothing this time. How
come?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT08:
published on 7<sup>th</sup> June. There was a previous
version impact analysis. The proposal didn’t change so
much that that impact analysis could have been reviewed,
at least in draft, to have “something” before the meeting.
So again, why not we had something?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT03:
published on 5<sup>th</sup> June. Again, there was a
previous version impact analysis, and the changes were to
accommodate to them, making the proposal much simpler, and
ensuring that those details on the impact analysis are
resolved. So how come we didn’t have one at least in
draft? This one also has been adopted in other regions,
and of course, we have impact analysis in others.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2018-v4-001-DRAFT-01:
published on 28<sup>th</sup> October (2018), is the only
one that had an impact analysis. Is this meaning that
staff needs 8 months to complete an impact analysis? *<b>by
the way</b>* I don’t know when it was completed, because
a) I can’t find any message announcing it to the list, b)
the impact analysis doesn’t say the date! Is that right?<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li style="mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"><span lang="EN-US">AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-05:
published on 9<sup>th</sup> June. There is a previous
version impact analysis, and again, there are minor
changes, so I could have expected at least a draft impact
analysis considering those minor changes.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>...randomized delivering ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is it intended that it walks like that ?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US">Note that sometimes the publication is
delayed several days, so the staff has got in fact *<b>more</b>*
days to start the impact analysis.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Note also, that in some cases, if an
impact analysis can’t be completed in time, it is good
enough to have the same “draft” inputs that the staff is
providing in the meeting, *<b>but</b>* authors need that *<b>before</b>*
the meeting, so we can work out a clearer explanation in
case of discrepancies.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>:-) Jordy, reassures me that we can correct it...and please
tell me also how we can succeed ?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any other voice out there ? :'-(<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">I may agree that
if a proposal has been submitted only 10 days before
the meeting, it may be difficult to make it in time,
but not for a “new” version of an existing proposal,
which already had the analysis impact.</span><span
lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Ok if it's unpractical, we should
try to modify the CPM, at section 3.4.2, to fix|ameliorate
what seems to be broken... <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border-top:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:dotted windowtext
3.0pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">CPM section
3.4.2 : «[...]No change can be made to a draft policy within
one week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of
the draft policy can be considered at the meeting.[...]» <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">As my analysis
above shows, I don’t think anything is broken. We can always
improve the PDP, but if something is already part of the
operational process, it is just a clarification, and there
are more important policy proposals in the table than
sending on for just resolving a non-problem. I will be in
favor of this if we have 2 days policy-day next time!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">*** Chairs and
staff must agree on how much an impact analysis may take in
every policy proposal case. Some proposals may take hours.
Very few may take weeks or even more than a month. However,
it may be a *<b>management</b>* or even *<b>board</b>*
problem to ensure that the staff has available “human
resources” to do their work timely. May be the folks in the
staff that are responsible for making the impact analysis (I
know it implies different departments and even CEO
approval), need to prioritize, up-front of a meeting, what
of their tasks are more important for a successful
policy-day.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>I agree that the BoD could help here; but i think we must first
clearly state the problem to solve.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, our Chairs <b>*agreement*</b> with the Staff, creates
an unexpected situation. (this is fact)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, to handle this fact, IMHO we should stop this <b>*agreement*</b>
and if we want to ameliorate things in that regard, it will be
possible to try something new (BoD reaction, PDP revision, other
possibility)...</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">And of course,
I’ve asked the staff several times for it, during the
last weeks. Co-chairs were copied. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Ok, i personaly think that it is
legitimate to want to move things forward ; but i also
understand (policily speaking) that the staff was in their
rights to not considere your *direct* request as a legitimate
one. Even though i guess they were just busy :-) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Agree (see previous comment), but one of
the *<b>most</b>* important things that a RIR must do is
PDP! This is top priority.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Ok, hope that the coming facts will convince us of that *top*
priority...</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Precisely, most
of the newer versions, at least in the case of my
proposals, where to address the points raised in the
impact analysis. So, it should be easy to get the
previous impact analysis, compare the differences of
the old and new versions of the policy proposal,
against the impact analysis, and raise if something is
missing.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">:-) i'm sure that at least one of
them (policy liaison?) might be reading...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Do you think we should also
(policily speaking) ask one of them (say the same staff member
i mentioned above) to follow|read the discussions and react
when we need|seek their expertise ? :-D<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">I
know by the fact, they are reading, that’s why I post those
messages here when private ones didn’t work as
expected! Again, not blaming them, just makes sure we
improve things.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...again, not blaming anyone too, i just want to understand how
things walk ; in order to see if we can ameliorate something.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, tell me please : why (despite the provision of CPM
section 3.4.0) we don't get any response since we ping them ? [1]</div>
<div> <span style="font-size:12pt"> <br>
</span></div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Staff
and chairs know very well that I send them emails any time I
can offer suggestions, ideas to improve participation,
requests for anything which is good for them and for the
community. I always try my best, because when you
contribute, you discover issues to resolve. Nobody is
perfect, this is about *<b>collaboration from all</b>*.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">For
example, I discovered a few weeks ago, that the numbering
system of the policy proposal is flawed so suggested it to
get changed and don’t differentiate them, just
“year-number-version”. The point is that because the policy
proposals get “classified” as “general, IPv4, IPv6 or ASN”,
if during the discussion, the policy proposal change its
scope, which happens sometimes, then you need to withdraw
the policy proposal and re-start it. This was the reason
instead of just updating my last year Intra-RIR policy
proposal (which was “GEN”), turned into a new one.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Thank you for sharing your findings with us.</div>
<div>When i see the provision from the CPM section 3.4.1 then i
confirm that the Staff has the full rights to change it right now
:-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:dotted
windowtext 3.0pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:dotted
windowtext 3.0pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span
lang="EN-US"></span>CPM section 3.4.1 : «[...]
Each draft policy is assigned a unique identifier by AFRINIC and
the AFRINIC website shall also contain the version history and
the status of all proposals.
[...]»</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Hopefully
this is considered by the staff soon and we remove this
classification soon, and we get all the policy proposal in
the table renumbered to the “new” system.<br>
</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Many thanks for your endeavor. I look forward to see that
improvement.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Believe me, in
most of the proposals, this is a matter of few hours
of dedication. My only concern is if staff is
overbooked, which is something that should be
evaluated by the organization (not authors). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">First, have we already tried to
fix the problem with our means (the policy) ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">As said before, there are two parts. PDP
(policies) and procedures. Not all requires policies. If we
micro-manage, it becomes cumbersome. In my thinking, we
should use policies only when procedures don’t improve by
themselves (or the community radically disagree with the
procedures), or don’t exist at all. PDP is heavy, its slow,
it requires a lot of community effort, which sometimes is
not needed if just improving procedures is sufficient. Just
consider the time it requires to have 10 policy proposals
presented in the meeting. How if we try to present 15 or 20?</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>Thanks, i will remember this PDP picture you painted for us
(me). :-)</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
[...]<o:p> <br>
</o:p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">...it seems as there is something
to fix :-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Considering what i have said
above, do you admit that, as it is, the process is flaw ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span lang="EN-US">Please, consider my point about the
difference between operational procedures and policies.
Micro-management is not good, even if sometimes is needed.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>...i understand it thanks. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, my will is not to micro-manage operational tasks but
to find appropriate way forward to deal with what seems to be
flawed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But if you know how to fix it without any PDP alteration. Fix
it please.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I really appreciate your support, i see you trying to help me
:-)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...just remember that i'm still learning the PDP and logically,
i first rely on the CPM (v.1.3).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If some operational procedure doesn't follow the PDP, it shall
be more difficult for me to understand how things walk :'-(</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt">The impact
for this is really big. Right now, we have 8 policy
proposals that didn't reached consensus and only
considering new proposal that I've in mind to submit
(5), it means that for the next meeting we will have *at
least* 13 policy proposals in the table.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt">...other
might also propose drafts for new policy proposals :'-(<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">I hope so, more
people contributing, and yes, that’s why I said “at
least” :-)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.8pt">:-) but
please withdraw one of your two similar policy proposals
about out of AFRINIC region resource (IPv4) transfers.
That action could diminish the number of policy
proposals ;-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Remember that I
presented them jointly, with the same time for two
proposals, that for a single one, so actually that’s
not taking time. Anyway, if we can have a “clear”
decision in the list from now to the next meeting, I’m
happy to withdraw one of them, but this is only going
to work if we have 200 voices in the list supporting
one of those. Otherwise, I can withdraw the wrong one
and then in the meeting, the participants decision
withdraws the other one, so we have nothing. You see
the point? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">...so you don't want to take the
*risk* (i don't actualy see a risk, though) ? :-)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">I may change my
mind on this depending on how the discussion goes in the
next weeks … Let’t talk that in the relevant thread!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Thanks again!</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>...no please, it's me :-)</div>
<div>__</div>
<div>[1]: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009561.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2019/009561.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Shalom,</div>
<div>--sb.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ECDED0AD-0F02-4A4B-91BC-E5AA2BCE973F@consulintel.es">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
[...]
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Regards,
Sylvain B.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.chretiennement.org"><http://www.chretiennement.org></a>
__
Website : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cmnog.cm"><https://www.cmnog.cm></a>
Wiki : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki"><https://www.cmnog.cm/dokuwiki></a>
Surveys : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://survey.cmnog.cm"><https://survey.cmnog.cm></a>
Subscribe to Mailing List : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/"><https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/></a>
Mailing List's Archives : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/"><https://lists.cmnog.cm/pipermail/cmnog/></a>
Last Event's Feed : <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOGlab3"><https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOGlab3></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://twitter.com/cmN0G"><https://twitter.com/cmN0G></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://facebook.com/cmNOG"><https://facebook.com/cmNOG></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/REBOOTcmNOG"><https://twitter.com/hashtag/REBOOTcmNOG></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOG"><https://twitter.com/hashtag/cmNOG></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://cmnog.wordpress.com/"><https://cmnog.wordpress.com/></a></pre>
</body>
</html>