<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Then it is the duty of the RIR to check if the transfer is
according to the policy and approve it as a neutral entity and
more importantly, the responsible to register and update the whois
information. If the RIR makes some kind of mistake on this
transaction he will be the responsible.</p>
<p>It seems some of you are reading the text too strict and is not
like that. The RIR executes the policies and an 'approbation' from
the RIR means only that the process in their interpretation went
all according to the policy. It will not judge or make up anything
else other than apply what is in the policy.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13/11/2019 12:23, Paschal Ochang
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMU0wT4Y3+Ww1BpHoc41xVawsRzVJk4uuz9vuNS5st6oyng-Jw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
Hello Tony,
<div>It's not just an assignemnt issue, but I really think an
approval is not necessary for transfer either. As long as the
transfer is not against policies, then it is valid and shall be
carried out. This is fair, and just, and it also saves time - I
don't see any problem there even without AFRINIC's approval.
AFRINIC, being a registry, is simply an executor of policies and
it shall not have power to judge or decide beyond that.
Therefore, I remain, similar to the others above, oppose to this
policy.<br>
<br>
On Wednesday, November 13, 2019, Anthony Ubah <<a
href="mailto:ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:15.6933px;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial">I
quite agree with you Taiwo. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial">In
wonder the possibility it. How practical is
it that AFRINIC can "approve" every
assignment? How many people/staff
are at their disposal to manage this task
and achieve this? In view, AFRINIC
doesn't have such manpower resource,
efficacy and reliability to do such a task.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial">At
least that's not the major practice of other
RIRs - a two-way unconditional transfer is
everywhere, and the assignment doesn't
need RIR's approval. I don't see why AFRINIC
is not following others. If other
RIRs are doing that and for a while, at
least that means it works, and it works
effectively.
I think AFRINIC should follow suit and avoid
positioning itself into the risk
of committing to a task it cannot undertake
thereby creating an inefficient
system. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial">Africa
is still an emerging IT infrastructural
market, and I can already imagine what a
dreadful scene it will be if the
policy gets approved, businesses will be
frustrated and shut down. An avalanche of
complaints will pile on AFRINIC. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:15.6933px;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in
8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial">We
need to avoid being pessimistic, it is in
the interest of AFRINIC and the region
itself to join lows the others, for its
own survival and growth. Let's follow the
trend with the other RIRs - and adopt a
policy that is equally open and allows a
two-way transfer. Evidently from other
RIR's example proves that such a two-way
transfer works well enough.</span></p>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p style="line-height:19.5px"><b
style="line-height:19.2px;font-size:12.8px"><span
style="line-height:19.2px"><font
face="garamond, serif"><br>
</font></span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:19.5px"><b
style="line-height:19.2px;font-size:12.8px"><span
style="line-height:19.2px"><font
face="garamond, serif">Best
Regards,</font></span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:19.5px"><font
face="garamond, serif"><b
style="line-height:19.2px;font-size:12.8px"><span
style="line-height:19.2px">ANTHONY </span></b></font><b
style="font-family:garamond,serif;line-height:19.2px;font-size:12.8px"><span
style="line-height:19.2px">UBAH </span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:19.5px"><span
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:garamond,serif">Goldspine
Nigeria</span></p>
<p style="line-height:19.5px"><span
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:garamond,serif">E-mail: </span><a
href="mailto:anthony.ubah@gloworld.com"
style="font-family:garamond,serif"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">anthony.ubah@<wbr>goldspine.com</a><span
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);font-family:garamond,serif">.ng</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at
7:58 PM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list
submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit<br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Proposal Update received: AFRINIC Number
Resources<br>
Transfer Policy (Taiwo Oyewande)<br>
2. Re: Proposal Update received: AFRINIC Number
Resources<br>
Transfer Policy (Mark Elkins)<br>
3. Re: Proposal Update received: AFRINIC Number
Resources<br>
Transfer Policy (Noah)<br>
4. new policy proposal: AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:
"Chairs<br>
Elections Process" (Anthony Ubah)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:13:34 +0100<br>
From: Taiwo Oyewande <<a
href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Sylvain BAYA <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">abscoco@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: AFRINIC
Number Resources<br>
Transfer Policy<br>
Message-ID: <<a
href="mailto:1973DDAB-1406-4E86-B8D9-0008E6610BA3@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">1973DDAB-1406-4E86-B8D9-<wbr>0008E6610BA3@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii<br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
This policy seems unrealistic with the amount of
assignments of network resources which takes place daily<br>
<br>
In section 2.0: <br>
"Number resources are non-transferable and are not
assignable to any other organization unless AFRINIC has
expressly and in writing approved a request for
transfer. AFRINIC is tasked with making prudent
decisions on whether to approve the transfer of number
resources". <br>
<br>
Assignment takes place on a regular basis between
business and business, and business and end-user. If all
of these assignments need AFRINIC's approval, It will be
an herculean task if not impossible for AFRINIC to
manage such massive amount of assignment. <br>
For instance, if every assignment approval takes 2-3
days (maybe even way longer!), this means during the
"pre-approval period" businesses and end-users will not
have the resource they need for daily operations.<br>
<br>
People get IP to assign to customers by its very
definition. To be frank, I think this policy is
unpractical, thus I hereby oppose it.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:25:23 +0200<br>
From: Mark Elkins <<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mje@posix.co.za</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: AFRINIC
Number Resources<br>
Transfer Policy<br>
Message-ID: <<a
href="mailto:075f0136-948f-33f3-0ff3-d45e7a771133@posix.co.za"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">075f0136-948f-33f3-0ff3-<wbr>d45e7a771133@posix.co.za</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
You do know that basically the same sort of policy
exists everywhere <br>
else in the world - and it works there just fine.<br>
<br>
On 2019/11/12 17:13, Taiwo Oyewande wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> This policy seems unrealistic with the amount of
assignments of network resources which takes place daily<br>
><br>
> In section 2.0:<br>
> "Number resources are non-transferable and are not
assignable to any other organization unless AFRINIC has
expressly and in writing approved a request for
transfer. AFRINIC is tasked with making prudent
decisions on whether to approve the transfer of number
resources".<br>
><br>
> Assignment takes place on a regular basis between
business and business, and business and end-user. If all
of these assignments need AFRINIC's approval, It will be
an herculean task if not impossible for AFRINIC to
manage such massive amount of assignment.<br>
> For instance, if every assignment approval takes
2-3 days (maybe even way longer!), this means during the
"pre-approval period" businesses and end-users will not
have the resource they need for daily operations.<br>
><br>
> People get IP to assign to customers by its very
definition. To be frank, I think this policy is
unpractical, thus I hereby oppose it.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa<br>
<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel:
+27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496<br>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a
href="https://ftth.posix.co.za" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 20:37:19 +0300<br>
From: Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">noah@neo.co.tz</a>><br>
To: Taiwo Oyewande <<a
href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: AfriNIC List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Proposal Update received: AFRINIC
Number Resources<br>
Transfer Policy<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a
href="mailto:CAEqgTWaxNDMHrs3tUCkGK3RECBFtzwAfWmCiBQ4f4kuZgB8y_g@mail.gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">CAEqgTWaxNDMHrs3tUCkGK3RECBFt<wbr>zwAfWmCiBQ4f4kuZgB8y_g@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, 20:18 Taiwo Oyewande, <<a
href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> This policy seems unrealistic with the amount of
assignments of network<br>
> resources which takes place daily<br>
><br>
<br>
Where I work, we tend to make about 2 or 3 assignment in
a whole month. Its<br>
therefore not daily as you assume.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> In section 2.0:<br>
> "Number resources are non-transferable and are not
assignable to any other<br>
> organization unless AFRINIC has expressly and in
writing approved a request<br>
> for transfer. AFRINIC is tasked with making prudent
decisions on whether to<br>
> approve the transfer of number resources".<br>
><br>
> Assignment takes place on a regular basis between
business and business,<br>
> and business and end-user. If all of these
assignments need AFRINIC's<br>
> approval, It will be an herculean task if not
impossible for AFRINIC to<br>
> manage such massive amount of assignment.<br>
><br>
<br>
Please read that very part of the policy proposal again.<br>
<br>
<br>
For instance, if every assignment approval takes 2-3
days (maybe even way<br>
> longer!), this means during the "pre-approval
period" businesses and<br>
> end-users will not have the resource they need for
daily operations.<br>
><br>
<br>
You said for instance so basically you are making
assumptions.<br>
<br>
Noah<br>
<br>
Noah<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191112/8f6b4397/attachment-0001.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/attachments/<wbr>20191112/8f6b4397/attachment-<wbr>0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 19:56:20 +0100<br>
From: Anthony Ubah <<a
href="mailto:ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: [rpd] new policy proposal:
AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:<br>
"Chairs Elections Process"<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAHcb0AQKE=+<a
href="mailto:pxhNAyJgm_XOy8YRrF42vsdXEfeL_aTFBZdZG3Q@mail.gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pxhNAyJgm_<wbr>XOy8YRrF42vsdXEfeL_aTFBZdZG3Q@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hello Jordie and Souad,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I?ve just gone through your proposal. Having once
contested for a chair as<br>
co-chair I quite recognize a need to revisit the
election process. However,<br>
I don?t agree with the crust of this proposal.<br>
<br>
The stated problem being addressed (below) is accurate,
nevertheless<br>
personally I find that several areas are debatable, t?s
as evident in the<br>
views on the mail trails so far.<br>
<br>
*?The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses
very briefly how<br>
the chairs are chosen. However, there is not sufficient
detail about the<br>
candidate requirements, neither a complete process.?*<br>
<br>
Most observations I have made have already been brought
previously<br>
highlighted and brought forward by other members of the
community, and I<br>
see that you(Jordi) have painstakingly tried to address
a few of them, but<br>
I will still want to reiterate a few of mine.<br>
<br>
>From section 3.3.1<br>
<br>
*? Both chairs can?t be from the same country,*<br>
<br>
*except in exceptional situations where there are*<br>
<br>
*no other acceptable candidates, in which case one*<br>
<br>
*of the chairs will cease in their position at the*<br>
<br>
*following election process (following year), either*<br>
<br>
*because their term has come to an end or by*<br>
<br>
*agreement among the two chairs, failing which*<br>
<br>
*the chair who has held the position the longest*<br>
<br>
*will automatically cease in their position*<br>
<br>
Ant: I am an advocate for freedom and transparency, thus
I strongly<br>
disagree with any form of restrictions due to the
country of origin or<br>
resident of the co-chairs. Nomination and election
should be a matter of<br>
substance. Like Daniel said *?Else we may be trading
competency for<br>
representative?*. The focus should be on the candidates?
competence and<br>
motivation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
>From Section 3.3.2<br>
<br>
*3.3.2 About the election of the Chairs*<br>
<br>
*? Voting will be conducted electronically, using*<br>
<br>
*mechanisms to ensure, as much as possible, that*<br>
<br>
*each voter can cast only one vote.*<br>
<br>
Ant:<br>
<br>
1. Through what electronic means?<br>
<br>
2. Solely remote voting? When can the community meet
and interact with<br>
the candidates, or do we rely solely on credentials and
public opinions? If<br>
so, then what is the need for waiting till the next PPM?
Run an election,<br>
conclude and announce results on online.<br>
<br>
3. How can voters be identified for transparency in
eligibility and<br>
vote counting?<br>
<br>
4. What mechanism is put in place to detect multiple
accounts run by<br>
one person? Because we might be an advent of a scenario
of account<br>
squatting for voting purposes. Where one person will
register multiple<br>
dummy accounts in anticipation of election time.<br>
<br>
5. How can off-net collusion be detected?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? Anyone who has been part of the RPD List for at*<br>
<br>
*least 6 months prior to the start of the election*<br>
<br>
*process may participate.*<br>
<br>
Ant: Fair<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even*<br>
<br>
*when by persons clearly supportive of a*<br>
<br>
*candidate, may result in their disqualification, if*<br>
<br>
*there is evidence of collusion.*<br>
<br>
Ant: This is controversial. A member can disenfranchise
a candidate by<br>
running a pseudo campaign in his favour, just to have
that candidate or<br>
both disqualified in favour of another. Simply put, one
less voter for one<br>
less Candidate. Very unbalanced.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? AFRINIC will communicate the names of*<br>
<br>
*Acceptable candidates to the RPD List,*<br>
<br>
*announcing where candidate information will be *<br>
<br>
*published.*<br>
<br>
The term acceptable candidate reflects in bullet point 3
of 3.3.1 and<br>
bullet point 7 of 3.3.2. Are there separate criteria
stipulated for<br>
candidates to measure who fall within the ?acceptable?
threshold, or is it<br>
the same as voter eligibility as stated in bullet point
3 of 3.3.2? If not,<br>
what other criteria do you recommend for eligibility?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? A period of 10 calendar days will then begin*<br>
<br>
*during which the community will be able to*<br>
<br>
*contribute relevant information on the candidates.*<br>
<br>
*This information, if confirmed, may be published*<br>
<br>
*simultaneously for all candidates on the first*<br>
<br>
*working day following the end of the 10-day*<br>
<br>
*period. As a result of that information, the Board*<br>
<br>
*could disqualify any candidate.*<br>
<br>
Ant: Quite Ambiguous. Kindly rephrase.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? Voting will begin on the first working Monday*<br>
<br>
*after the period specified above and will remain*<br>
<br>
*open for 7 calendar days*.<br>
<br>
Ant: When can the community meet and interact with the
candidates?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
*? If any objections are raised by a member of the*<br>
<br>
*community, such objections must be*<br>
<br>
*communicated to the Board within 7 calendar*<br>
<br>
*days of the announcement of the results. The*<br>
<br>
*Board will then assess whether such objections*<br>
<br>
*are significant and have been proven. If no*<br>
<br>
*objections are raised, or if those aren?t*<br>
<br>
*considered, will proceed to ratify the winning*<br>
<br>
*candidate.*<br>
<br>
Ant: As I said before, I am an advocate of a transparent
system. I think<br>
narrowing a lot of things down to the Board is a way for
locking the larger<br>
community away from critical decisions.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Drifting off a bit to the second trail on the subject
matter. The existing<br>
election process might not be perfect, but the influence
of the local<br>
community should not be frowned at. The community is
encouraged to grow,<br>
and there is no better opportunity to do that than by
driving active<br>
participation of the host community as was witnessed in
Kampala, where a<br>
lot of IT students participated actively throughout.<br>
<br>
Curbing the local influence of the host
country/?newcomer voter? in the<br>
election process will achieve infinitesimal gain. Since
the Bi-annual PPM<br>
is shifted across regions it solves itself organically.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
In conclusion, I think the intention of initiating this
proposal is very<br>
noble, but I would suggest a comprehensive review. It is
not ready.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Anthony<br>
<br>
*Best Regards,*<br>
<br>
*UBAH ANTHONY **IKECHUKWU *<br>
<br>
Goldspine Nigeria<br>
<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:anthony.ubah@goldspine.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">anthony.ubah@goldspine.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:anthony.ubah@gloworld.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">anthony.ubah@gloworld.com</a>>.ng<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:23 PM <<a
href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit<br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> 1. Re: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy
(Fernando Frediani)<br>
> 2. Re: new policy proposal:
AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01: "Chairs<br>
> Elections Process" (Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 19:01:58 -0300<br>
> From: Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] AFRINIC Number Resources
Transfer Policy<br>
> Message-ID: <<a
href="mailto:fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-f57fd5474722@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">fa51b0ca-936b-5dbf-3ea7-<wbr>f57fd5474722@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8";
Format="flowed"<br>
><br>
> In practice this situation you describe is very
hard to happen, we<br>
> cannot have things in place to treat the very
unlikely situation and<br>
> that Phase 2 is about to happen soon. Until there
the vast majority or<br>
> organization (really the vast!) can get addresses
from AfriNic fine.<br>
> I hardly doubt one can justify anything more than a
/13 at once at the<br>
> moment. Even in a remote hypothesis that is
possible the organization<br>
> can receive the /13 and work with that until
transfers are allowed as<br>
> per Jordi's proposal that has been changed to start
with Phase 2 is<br>
> triggered and that organization will be able to
transfer whatever else<br>
> is needed.<br>
> One rule for all and much simpler.<br>
><br>
> Fernando<br>
><br>
> On 10/11/2019 18:51, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> On Nov 10, 2019, at 10:51 , Chevalier du
Borg <<a href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a><br>
> >> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:virtual.borg@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">virtual.borg@gmail.com</a><wbr>>>
wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Le?dim. 10 nov. 2019 ??21:58, Jaco Kroon
<<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">jaco@uls.co.za</a><br>
> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jaco@uls.co.za"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jaco@uls.co.za</a>>>
a ?crit?:<br>
> >><br>
> >> Hi Chevalier.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Please allow me to be blunt.? That's
short sighted.<br>
> >><br>
> >> We cannot transfer IN from other
regions unless we allow OUT.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> Agree 100%,<br>
> >> Then you have no problems with wait till
all RIRs are equal run out<br>
> >> before we etablish full in and out
transfer policy no?<br>
> >><br>
> >> All the other RIRs require reciprocal
*compatible* policies,<br>
> >> which means bi-directional transfers.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> All RIRs don't all have equal amount of
free space. Big difference<br>
> ><br>
> > Depending on your definition here, 4 out of 5
have exactly equal<br>
> > amount == 0.<br>
> ><br>
> >> Not allowing this means we can't get
resources in either.<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> While AfriNIC have free space, operators
don't need it<br>
> >> When it run out, then we can allow
transfer policy<br>
> ><br>
> > This isn?t entirely true.<br>
> ><br>
> > It?s possible that an operator needs more than
they can get via<br>
> > current AfriNIC policies due to ?soft landing?
limitations.<br>
> ><br>
> > In such a case, said operator might prefer to
transfer a large amount<br>
> > of space in even if they are paying for it on
the market<br>
> > rather than suffer with the small amount of
space they can get from<br>
> > AfriNIC due to the current restrictions.<br>
> ><br>
> > Is there a valid reason to preclude such a
transfer which, in reality,<br>
> > prolongs the AfriNIC free pool to the benefit
of other<br>
> > organizations in Africa?<br>
> ><br>
> > Owen<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> > <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/6961beb6/attachment-0001.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/attachments/<wbr>20191110/6961beb6/attachment-<wbr>0001.html</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 22:22:39 +0000<br>
> From: Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <<a
href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: Owen DeLong <<a
href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
> Cc: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] new policy proposal:
AFPUB-2019-GEN-003-DRAFT01:<br>
> "Chairs Elections Process"<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
> <CAL_ZvK5xNb=<br>
> <a
href="mailto:LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">LJXC5rCR8bDKUv528XVJGn2grRmxHC<wbr>1ZE9Go-iQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
><br>
> Owen see reply in line below<br>
><br>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 9:03 PM Owen DeLong <<a
href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Nov 10, 2019, at 02:15 , JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD <<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Andrew,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > El 9/11/19 6:19, "Andrew Alston" <<a
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.<wbr>com</a>><br>
> > escribi?:<br>
> ><br>
> > Coupla comments on this one:<br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3: **If both Working Group Chairs are
unable to attend the PPM, the<br>
> > Board will on-the-spot designate a
nonconflictive Chair for the session,<br>
> > that will be assisted by the staff*<br>
> ><br>
> > I don?t believe the board should designate, it
should preferably be an on<br>
> > the spot nomination and floor election by show
of hands or other<br>
> mechanism<br>
> > at the meeting. There has been and should
remain separation between the<br>
> > board and the PDP process ? since it is the
boards duty to ratify the<br>
> > process followed to declare consensus on any
policy passed, and hence,<br>
> > should a designate declare consensus on any
policy, you create a conflict<br>
> > of interest situation.<br>
> ><br>
> > ? I?m trying to avoid wasting time in the
meeting. The idea is that<br>
> > this is done up-front the meeting, not during
the policy session. I?m<br>
> happy<br>
> > to change that to the nomination committee if
you think that will resolve<br>
> > the issue. As I mention in my previous email,
I didn?t want to use the<br>
> > committees references because those are called
by the board, so it should<br>
> > be the board, if those committees exist, the
one that delegate the<br>
> > functions. An alternative is to explicitly
have some text in the policy<br>
> > that indicates that the board is that ?top
responsible, but it must<br>
> > delegate that functions thru a nomination
committee?, without entering in<br>
> > this policy on the details of that committee.
What do you think ?.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I think that the situation where no co-chair
attends the meeting is rare<br>
> > and exceptional enough that using some time at
the meeting to nominate<br>
> and<br>
> > elect a chair pro tem is a perfectly valid
solution and that any other<br>
> > solution presented so far is problematic.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also, assuming that we know before the meeting
that the co-chairs will be<br>
> > unable to attend is a perilous assumption to
build into the process,<br>
> IMHO.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb : A clear example of what happened in Kampala
where we had only a<br>
> Co-chair supported by staff to chair a meeting. How
will a single co-chair<br>
> measure rough concensus?<br>
><br>
> What you can't predict is visa rejections or if
there is a travel ban on<br>
> the country that one of the co-chair is from.<br>
> Imagine a scenario where the two co-chairs are from
the same country as<br>
> canvassed by some members on this list, what
happens at that PDP meeting<br>
> when any or both of them suffers visa rejection or
there is a civil unrest<br>
> in that country leading to travel ban?<br>
><br>
> We should in most case see the call to even ensure
that no two Co-chair<br>
> emanate from the same country to reduce the risk
exposure of the PDPWG and<br>
> uneventful scenarios like that.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.1 Bullet point 6: PDWG Chairs will
each serve staggered two-year<br>
> > terms. PDWG Chairs may only be re-elected for
one consecutive term but<br>
> are<br>
> > illegible to run again after a minimum
one-year pause. *<br>
> ><br>
> > Should that not say they are eligible after a
minimum one-year pause? I<br>
> > presume that?s a typo?<br>
> ><br>
> > Yes, definitively, word autocorrection made a
trouble here!<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Personally, I am opposed to term limits. We
have elections. Co-Chairs are<br>
> > up for re-election no less than every two
years. If people want a new<br>
> > co-chair, they can easily vote for that. Why
deprive voters of choice? Do<br>
> > you not trust the electorate to make good
choices?<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb: I do see a valid point of of argument here
and I'm sure the<br>
> co-authors have taking note of your point.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet point 7: AFRINIC will
communicate the names of<br>
> acceptable<br>
> > candidates to the RPD List, announcing where
candidate information will<br>
> be<br>
> > published.*<br>
> ><br>
> > This is ambiguous in my view point ? you state
in bullet point 3 of the<br>
> > same section that anyone who has been part of
the RPD list for a minimum<br>
> of<br>
> > 6 months may participate, in section 3.3.1 you
specify a one year minimum<br>
> > pause ? but beyond that ? what does acceptable
mean? This needs some<br>
> kind<br>
> > of definition ? and I?d be quite happy to say
explicitly that if those 2<br>
> > criteria are met, they are eligible and then
let the community decide,<br>
> but<br>
> > if it does mean more than that, it needs less
ambiguity.<br>
> ><br>
> > In 3.3.1, we have:<br>
> > ?In addition to the candidate?s biographical
information, nominations<br>
> must<br>
> > include specific information that allows
assessing their contribution,<br>
> > participation and experience in the PDWG. The
candidates must also<br>
> provide<br>
> > information about what they will like to
achieve during their term,<br>
> > possible improvements to the PDWG, etc.?<br>
> ><br>
> > Because AFRINIC (board -> nomination
committee) will check all the<br>
> > information, they will verify that the
candidate has been there for 6<br>
> > months, can be re-elected (if is the case),
provide their biographical<br>
> > information and some statement about what they
want to achieve. Only if<br>
> all<br>
> > that has been provided, is an acceptable
candidate. However, keep<br>
> reading ?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I am very hesitant to open the can of worms
wherein the board is allowed<br>
> > to deem RPD co-chair candidates acceptable or
not. Am I the only one that<br>
> > sees this as a serious avenue for abuse of the
process to stack the deck<br>
> on<br>
> > available candidates?<br>
> ><br>
> > My statement here in no way accuses or
reflects on the current AfriNIC<br>
> > board. It is a question of procedural abuse
that I would raise in any<br>
> such<br>
> > construct regardless of the trust or esteem I
held for the board in<br>
> > question. These rules should be intended to
last well beyond the current<br>
> > board and must, therefore, consider any
possible board makeup.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet Point 8: A period of 10
calendar days will then begin<br>
> > during which the community will be able to
contribute relevant<br>
> information<br>
> > on the candidates. This information, if
confirmed, may be published<br>
> > simultaneously for all candidates on the first
working day following the<br>
> > end of the 10-day period. As a result of that
information, the Board<br>
> could<br>
> > disqualify any candidate.*<br>
> ><br>
> > This represents a big problem to me. It
states as a result of the<br>
> > information the board may disqualify any
candidate. This is wide open<br>
> and<br>
> > allows the arbitrary disqualification of
candidates. If someone is to be<br>
> > disqualified, it should be on the grounds of
not meeting a defined set of<br>
> > acceptable criteria ? that are published and
known and codified in<br>
> policy.<br>
> > Anything else could result in similar conflict
of interest to that<br>
> > mentioned in the first point in this email.<br>
> ><br>
> > If the board->nomination committee,
receives any information that is<br>
> > relevant and confirmed (so not a ?rumour?), it
could be publish and any<br>
> > candidate be disqualified. Let me have an
example. A candidate has been<br>
> > divorced 10 times. Is that relevant to the
community? Clearly not.<br>
> However,<br>
> > a candidate has been elected as the chair of
an ISPs association and then<br>
> > has not followed his duties and this can be
publicly confirmed (example,<br>
> a<br>
> > press release from the association indicating
that they fired its chair).<br>
> > Do you think the candidate is acceptable? The
board can decide if<br>
> > publishing a link to the (already) public
information, so the community<br>
> > knows when voting, or directly disqualify the
candidate.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > This is a _REALLY_ bad idea, IMHO. The board
should not be preemptively<br>
> > disqualifying candidates on judgment calls in
lieu of the judgment of the<br>
> > community.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> Caleb:The last i checked, there are election and
nomination committees with<br>
> just a board representative.<br>
><br>
> The process I think allows for an open call for
Expression of Interest for<br>
> anyone who wants to participate in that committee
which is independent of<br>
> the board but has a board representation in that
committee that provides<br>
> guidance and also give feedback to the board.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 Bullet point 9: If any objections
are raised by a member of the<br>
> > community, such objections must be
communicated to the Board within 7<br>
> > calendar days of the announcement of the
results. The Board will then<br>
> > assess whether such objections are significant
and have been proven. If<br>
> no<br>
> > objections are raised, or if those aren?t
considered, will proceed to<br>
> > ratify the winning candidate.*<br>
> ><br>
> > I would prefer this be done in a more open
manner. That is to say that<br>
> if<br>
> > an objection is raised, the objection and the
consideration thereof<br>
> should<br>
> > be made public. The community should be able
to see the objections and<br>
> why<br>
> > they were adjudicated in a particular manner.<br>
> ><br>
> > The statement doesn?t say that the board
?can?t? publish the information.<br>
> > But I think those objections should only be
publish if the candidate is<br>
> > disqualified because the objections have been
proven.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> Caleb : I think the lexicon use of board as against
the Nomination &<br>
> Elections Committee can serve as an alternative.<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > No? The objections and the adjudication of
those objections must be<br>
> public<br>
> > regardless of the outcome. To do otherwise
creates a significant<br>
> potential<br>
> > for abuse of process. The objections should
not be anonymous and any<br>
> > anonymous objections should not be mentioned.
Whoever raises an objection<br>
> > should be identified right along with said
objection.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > *In 3.3.2 final point: The Board is the
highest instance of appeal in<br>
> > matters relating to the election process. The
board may delegate some or<br>
> > all of the required functions into the
Election and Nomination<br>
> Committees.*<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Caleb : A suggestion here for governance
Committee will be appropriate.<br>
><br>
> > I would prefer this be handled by an appeal
committee appointed outside<br>
> of<br>
> > the electoral process, and whose members are
ineligible for participation<br>
> > in the main election. Again, I do not believe
that the board should be<br>
> > involved in the functioning of the PDP since
it is they that have to<br>
> ratify<br>
> > policy that comes through the process. Hence,
as per a few of my other<br>
> > points ? I would prefer clear segregation.
While I acknowledge and fully<br>
> > agree that a board member, in his personal
capacity, has every right to<br>
> > participate in discussions around a policy ?
since board members are<br>
> > naturally members of the community, I do not
believe that they should<br>
> hold<br>
> > a position to influence anything in the
election of a candidate.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I agree here.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I?ve not read recently how the nomination
committee is elected, and I<br>
> > think unless somebody raised problems on that,
we should trust that is<br>
> > working. Otherwise, that requires a different
policy or procedure, or the<br>
> > board addressing it. You don?t think so?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > The nomination committee is not what is being
discussed in 3.3.2, so I am<br>
> > not sure how this comment applies to the
discussion above.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > I?m with you that participants on the
committees aren?t valid candidates,<br>
> > but is not that part already of those
procedures, or should we mention it<br>
> > here?<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > You are proposing a new procedures document
that will supersede the<br>
> > existing one. As such, it should be mentioned
here.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Similarly, I?m with you about the segregation
of functions, but I already<br>
> > responded to this in a previous email, so not
repeating it here. I also<br>
> > think that it is ?easier? for the community if
the board members do not<br>
> > participate in the discussions, **however**
they have the full right to<br>
> > do so, as community members (as well as
chairs), and the only requisite<br>
> (as<br>
> > we do in IETF and all the other RIRs) is that
if they express a personal<br>
> > opinion, they clearly say ?hat off this is my
personal view on this?, and<br>
> > this personal opinion is not used in a
decision for ratifying or not a<br>
> > policy (ratification should be based on ?has
the process been followed?<br>
> Has<br>
> > this policy a crazy impact on the membership
and endangers this<br>
> > organization??).<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Agreed, but the above 3.3.2 language puts the
board as the final and<br>
> > ultimate arbiter of the appeals process and
that is not a good idea.<br>
> ><br>
> > Owen<br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> Caleb Ogundele<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> > <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> ><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191110/68602c38/attachment.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/attachments/<wbr>20191110/68602c38/attachment.<wbr>html</a><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 56<br>
> ******************************<wbr>******<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191112/3635c098/attachment.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/attachments/<wbr>20191112/3635c098/attachment.<wbr>html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 158, Issue 71<br>
******************************<wbr>******<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<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>
</body>
</html>