<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:-webkit-standard;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 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;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{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;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I agree with Fernando.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I think the important point here is that authors should be cooperative with the community if they really want to get a proposal advancing and reaching consensus. Otherwise authors aren’t doing their job.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>As I said before, if a proposal is not updated with the inputs from the community, chairs don’t need to drop a proposal, but they can just not give the proposal time in the agenda.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If authors want to play trick with a new version, but not addressing community inputs … it is perfectly reasonable and I will say part of the chairs job, not allocate time for a proposal that has been updated only with editorial changes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 22/12/19 20:54, "Fernando Frediani" <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@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><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, 16:37 Owen DeLong, <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Some times a proposal can be modified to address objections to certain portions. Some times a proposal’s core intent just isn’t compatible with<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>the will of [some significant fraction] of the community. In this latter case, the proposal should be dropped after reasonable debate. Unfortunately,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>authors wish to substitute their opinion for the collective wisdom of the community and continue to push for this proposal against all objections.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hold on there !<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I do not support this proposal specifically, but calling certain objections "a wisdom of the community" isn't the most appropriate term to use in my view.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Sometimes there are good points raised in nearly equal quality or arguments for both sides and in these cases it is simply impossible to reach consensus. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>In such cases I wouldn't call one of the sides of collective wisdom really.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Fernando<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div style='margin-left:36.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>10.</span></b><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'> </span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC draft8 (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus )</span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2016-gen-001-d8#proposal" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#0563C1'>https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2016-gen-001-d8#proposal</span></a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>This proposal has not reached consensus after many iterations spanning over 8 iterations spanning over 3 years (from May 2016). </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>The proposal sets a framework for AFRINIC to conduct reviews/audits of resource utilization by members (to ensure efficient and appropriate use).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style='margin-left:36.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1D2228'>•</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>Audits can be random or selected (by AFRINIC) or reported (by whistle-blower).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style='margin-left:36.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1D2228'>•</span><span style='font-size:7.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'> </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>Resources not complying are recovered and can be reallocated.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>The Co-chairs are considering dropping this policy entirely because it has been around for some time without achieving consensus. It is also noticed that the authors failed to attempt to address a lot of concerns. </span></b><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'> Co-chairs have </span></b><span lang=EN-HK style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>spent a lot of time on this proposal (over the last 1 month) reviewing comments and responses from previous meetings and believe that the authors did not address or attempt to address most of the major issues raised in the latest version. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>It strange that Co-chairs spent so much time on this proposal, and was not possible to produce the list of issues not addressed before or at the PPM to help the discussions.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>If nothing else, the following unaddressed issue pretty well covers the entire problem:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>This proposal is an attack vector which allows individuals to weaponize AfriNIC against organizations, providing a disproportionate effect on larger organizations with very little cost or repercussion to the potential attacker.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>It is unlikely that this issue can be addressed in any proposal meeting authors’ clear intent and authors have repeatedly ignored this issue in their multiple updates to the proposal.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>There are other objections which remain, but this is the one I believe is least likely to ever be sufficiently addressed.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>I am also glad to see the expression "major issues" used by Co-chairs while we were told there no such thing as suggested in PDP-bis. Can we have your definition of "major objection”<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Personally, I believe the co-chairs use of that term is in error as the term remains undefined.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>The terms which should (IMHO) be considered are substantive and sustained objections. (sustained as in continuing, not as in the ruling of a judge over an objection).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>The above core objection is both substantive (in that it strikes at the heart of the proposal and has been expressed by multiple members of the community representing several organizations.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-HK style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>The CPM allows us to vary the process in the best interest of the community hence we shall work with the authors of this proposal in the coming months to see if there can be a way forward on this proposal. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>There must be a way forward on this proposal the 8 iterations during the 3 years matured the proposal well enough as you can see in the revision history.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>It is important to keep in mind that all objections must addressed, but not all can acommodated</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Why does there have to be a way forward? I would argue that after 8 iterations in 3 years, the fact that the proposal still cannot achieve anything resembling consensus is evidence that the proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the desires fo the community and it is time to give up on int.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>It is also important to keep in mind that no proposal has a right to consensus. In most regions, something approximating 50% of all proposals fail to achieve consensus and end up abandoned. The long lived failure of this proposal is a rare example of a proposal which has failed and yet remains a focus of the community.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-HK style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>A decision shall be made based on this before the next policy meeting to avoid wasting the limited and precious time during the policy meeting. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>There are ways of better utilization the precious time during PPM: reduce the DDoS on the PDP with the numerous last minute proposals, reduce number of competite proposals, moderate and encourage discussions on proposals, keep issue list and drive discussions to closure.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Save the last one, all of your suggestions would involve limiting free speech and disenfranchising proposal authors.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I agree that having the co-chairs track the open issues with each proposal and driving discussions towards closure would be useful.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>However, closure does NOT necessarily mean consensus. It might mean a determination that a given policy has little or no chance of achieving consensus.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Currently, the PDP provides no mechanism for the co-chairs to address this problem. I believe that an ability to abandon proposals which have been to at least two meetings without achieving consensus should be added to the PDP.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><span lang=EN-HK style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:red'>A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'> </span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"-webkit-standard",serif'>We shall be grateful if you could vary the process using section 3.6 of the CPM, as you will arrange for the proposal to be fast tracked and adopted online before being presented at the next PPM.</span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>How can this occur… The proposal has nothing at all resembling consensus. Multiple objections remain, including the above objection which is fundamentally incompatible with the authors intent.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Varying the process is one thing. Abandoning it altogether in favor of bypassing the need for consensus would be outrageous.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;color:#1D2228'>Owen</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.<br>
<br>
</body></html>