<div dir="auto">Hello Caleb,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">While noting your point of order with reference citations, I still agree with the co chairs that time management is still an issue and requires timely intervention.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It was clear that, despite the allocated two days for Policy discussions, a quite number of community members were truncated from speaking at the mic on important issues, I, inclusive. This isnt good also. The reason was time. On the other hand, is time really the issue ? The fundamental issue lie with the inability for the current PDP process to terminate a proposal. Since the process flow dosent solve the underlaying problems, and therefore, encourage continuous refinements until the proposal is being passed. In other words forcing the community to adopt the policy.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The fairness rule as quoted, would do more harm by compounding the problem at long run where so many policies will be on the table for discussion within the limited time space. Or next time, I shouldnt obey the chairs once I am on the mic irrespective of the constraints?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Why should I spend my fund and time to attend a public policy meeting where I wouldn't be able to talk due to time? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It doesn't make any sense depriving one talking on the mic or cutting the allocated slot to 30sec on accounts of so many junky proposals that are endlessly in circulation and consistently, failed to reach consensus.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><span style="font-family:sans-serif"> I, therefore, STRONGLY agree with the decisions of the chairs.</span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best regards.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nasir. </div><div dir="auto"><br><div dir="auto"><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 23, 2019 12:43 PM, <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">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 noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/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" rel="noreferrer">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" rel="noreferrer">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: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting<br>
(Sander Steffann)<br>
2. Re: Replying to Digest emails (Willy Manga)<br>
3. Unsubscribe (Chittra Seeparsad)<br>
4. Re: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting<br>
(JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)<br>
5. Re: Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting<br>
(Komi Elitcha)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:03:55 +0100<br>
From: Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sander@steffann.nl</a>><br>
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during<br>
themeeting<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:298199C2-E69C-40D5-B57C-0DF7A2E3D598@steffann.nl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">298199C2-E69C-40D5-B57C-0DF7A2E3D598@steffann.nl</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
iH,<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
No, because then a proposal will still not expire. The chairs should not accept an update that doesn't address (which doesn't mean accommodate) the raised issues, period.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 833 bytes<br>
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/3d37e1b2/attachment-0001.sig" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/3d37e1b2/attachment-0001.sig</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:04:39 +0400<br>
From: Willy Manga <<a href="mailto:mangawilly@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mangawilly@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Replying to Digest emails<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:b3ed6ad5-a57c-fdcc-172e-0e6826b75af9@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">b3ed6ad5-a57c-fdcc-172e-0e6826b75af9@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi.<br>
<br>
On 22/12/2019 21:35, Fernando Frediani wrote:<br>
> Folks, could we please agree on not replying to Digest emails ?<br>
<br>
actually it's possible to reply to digest emails without breaking the<br>
thread. Unfortunately many people do not read the how-to which is<br>
clearly written at the top of each digest email.<br>
<br>
I paste it here:<br>
<br>
"<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
"<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> This is a bad pratice and breaks totally the discussion thread.<br>
> Receiving digest emails doesn't means the same level of commitment to the<br>
> list.<br>
<br>
To be more specific it is mostly related to how frequently you want to<br>
read emails from that list.<br>
You still have the ability to reply *but* you need to edit the topic.<br>
<br>
I use that option for some lists where I'm more reader than 'contributer'.<br>
<br>
<br>
P.S: I use to say that we should have a short tutorial on how to manage<br>
emails and lists: sort emails using folders in your inbox, top/bottom<br>
posting, plain/html text, digest or non digest, lists subscription, ...<br>
During new-comers session ? Have a short webinar people can replay<br>
anytime ??<br>
<br>
It would save a lot of time for all of us IMHO<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Willy Manga<br>
@ongolaboy<br>
<a href="https://ongola.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ongola.blogspot.com/</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: signature.asc<br>
Type: application/pgp-signature<br>
Size: 833 bytes<br>
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/82796821/attachment-0001.sig" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/82796821/attachment-0001.sig</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:42:05 +0400<br>
From: Chittra Seeparsad <<a href="mailto:chittra.seeparsad@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">chittra.seeparsad@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: [rpd] Unsubscribe<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADVY17uyfnLOxChdkRACeoT1CWxYetOAjg5Zti9erE=<a href="mailto:hjjBP3Q@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">hjjBP3Q@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hello<br>
<br>
Kindly unsubscribe me from your mailing list.<br>
Thank you<br>
<br>
Yours Sincerely<br>
Chittra<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/c9dcc88a/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/c9dcc88a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:50:31 +0100<br>
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
To: Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sander@steffann.nl</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during<br>
themeeting<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:C79A42C7-2147-416A-AD44-DBE2376571E7@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">C79A42C7-2147-416A-AD44-DBE2376571E7@consulintel.es</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
<br>
You're right, and same result. Not updated, no time in the agenda.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
?El 23/12/19 0:04, "Sander Steffann" <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sander@steffann.nl</a>> escribi?:<br>
<br>
iH,<br>
<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
No, because then a proposal will still not expire. The chairs should not accept an update that doesn't address (which doesn't mean accommodate) the raised issues, period.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><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>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:42:16 +0000<br>
From: Komi Elitcha <<a href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele<br>
<<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during<br>
themeeting<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:4EFF3B39-CF35-49FC-BF3F-580BD8476B5C@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">4EFF3B39-CF35-49FC-BF3F-580BD8476B5C@gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Owen,<br>
<br>
Thanks for finally agreeing that current pdp needs an upgrade which pdp bis tries to accomplish. <br>
<br>
We always, better address this pdp enhancement holistically instead of patching narrow issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-Komi<br>
> <br>
> As such, I will soon submit a proposal to amend the PDP to eliminate this technicality and provide appropriate discretion to the co-chairs to address such abuse of the process.<br>
> <br>
> Owen<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On Dec 22, 2019, at 03:14 , Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> Dear Abdulkareem, <br>
>> <br>
>> Thank you for your insight which I will like to provide you a context before you take a wrong decision without consulting other parts of the CPM to guide your decision. <br>
>> <br>
>> My advisory will like to point to section 3.4.1 of the CPM as quoted below. <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved by the AFRINIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version of the proposal. A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.<br>
>> <br>
>> The summary of the the highlight part simply guides you to know that even if single number or alphabet is inserted into the draft proposal with or without putting into consideration all inputs from the community, it is still the perogative of the authors as any insertion into the draft proposal naturally restarts it's one year life circle. <br>
>> <br>
>> It is therefore a clear guidance with less ambiguity that if the authors have fulfilled this aspect of the CPM for thier draft policy proposal, section 3.6 of the CPM cannot hold forth.<br>
>> <br>
>> While section 3.6 speaks to variation only in cases of emergency , the ambiguity in that section cannot be exploited in the case of fair hearing that you are expected to adjudicate on. The word adjudication does not in this case put you as a judge over a policy but to provide administrative guidance as clearly explained in section 3.3 which states that "The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions.<br>
>> <br>
>> That said, an attempt to exploiting section 3.6 which has lots of ambiguity for it's provision which says it is a" ONE TIME" thing could also be seen as an abuse of power which is subject to all forms of interpretation especially when the provisions did not clearly state the limited powers of the PDP Co-chair to remove /reject or deprive a policy FAIRNESS hearing as enshrined in section 3.2 of the CPM. Therefore, there is no emergency that allows you invoke such provisions without consultation with the authors. <br>
>> <br>
>> Additionally, your argument is for time management, but the argument is flawed as I recall that some Draft proposals passed to last call which buys you time expected that we do not have a single author coming up with 10 policy proposal for a single meeting. Perhaps, your invoking that 3.6 clause for emergency situations should allow you discuss with some authors who have more than 2 policies at a specific PPM to allow for the policies they introduced to atleast pass for time management before they can reintroduce another. <br>
>> <br>
>> While my submission is only advisory, I believe it provides some guidance and logical sense for the variation on emergency which will be subjected to other parts of the provisions of the CPM.<br>
>> <br>
>> Regards <br>
>> Caleb Ogundele <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 6:30 PM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Dear Caleb<br>
>>> See below <br>
>>> <br>
>>> "3.6 Varying the Process<br>
>>> <br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair.<br>
>>> There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed.<br>
>>> The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks.<br>
>>> If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.<br>
>>> <br>
>>> Thanks <br>
>>> co-Chair PDWG<br>
>>> <br>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, 16:27 Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele, <<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Dear Co-Chairs,<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> While I appreciate your painstaking report, could you point to my attention or educate me on any part of the CPM that gives you authority to make a decision such as rejecting or dropping a policy because it has been on the docket for awhile or you have personal opinions or concerns about it?<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> For the purpose of calling your attention to the statement, find it pasted below...<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> 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.<br>
>>>> Co-chairs have 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. 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. 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. A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process.<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> Caleb Ogundele<br>
>>>> <br>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:18 AM ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> AFRINIC31 Public Policy Meeting (PPM)<br>
>>>>> (held in Luanda, Angola)<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Decisions on policy proposals discussed during the meeting<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> DAY1<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 1. Multihoming not required for ASN (Co-Chairs Decision: Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/2019-asn-001-d4#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/2019-asn-001-d4#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> On Last Call<br>
>>>>> This proposal has reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, we declare rough consensus on this proposal. The last call for this proposal is till Monday 13 January 2020.<br>
>>>>> The current ASN policy requires multihoming (or plan thereof) before qualifying for an ASN.<br>
>>>>> ? This proposal modifies this requirement, adding the option to ?demonstrate a technical need? for the ASN.<br>
>>>>> ? Sites that do not need the global ASN can still use a private ASN per RFC1930, RFC6996.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 2. Adjusting IPv6 PA Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv6-002-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv6-002-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> On Last Call<br>
>>>>> This proposal has reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, we declare rough consensus on this proposal. The last call for this proposal is next Monday 13 January 2020.<br>
>>>>> ? The proposal corrects and aligns recent changes to IPv6 PI policy with IPv6 PA policy, especially on the need for issued IPv6 PA space to be announced within 12 months of receiving it. The current need to assign a /48 to a PoP (6.5.4.2) is also removed<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 3. Abuse Contact Policy Update (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d5" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2018-gen-001-d5</a><br>
>>>>> back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal did not reach a rough consensus because of the concerns about the confusion brought by the system were not addressed. There are also voices in the community that one attribute is enough. This also remains unaddressed.<br>
>>>>> ? The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include with each resource registration a contact where network abuse from users of those resources will be reported.<br>
>>>>> ? Proposed whois DB attribute (abuse-c) ? to be used to publish abuse public contact information<br>
>>>>> ? There?s also a process to ensure that abuse report must be received by the recipient, and that contacts are validated by AFRINIC regularly.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 4. AFRINIC Policy Development Process Bis v5 (No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2017-gen-002-d5#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2017-gen-002-d5#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> The proposal did not reach a consensus because of concerns over the necessity and practicality of this proposal has not been addressed. The debate over the superiority of the current development process over the proposed one has not been addressed.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> The proposal is a complete revision of the current Policy Development Process (CPM 3.0). Key highlights are:<br>
>>>>> ? Provides for different and distinct phases for a policy proposal?s cycle through the PDP - from adoption through the last call to Board ratification.<br>
>>>>> ? Clarifies the consensus process around major and minor objections<br>
>>>>> ? Clarifies responsibilities of Chairs of the working group and their role on how to determine the presence (or lack) of consensus.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 5. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space (Co-Chairs Decision Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-006-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-006-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> On Last Call<br>
>>>>> This proposal reached a rough consensus. Since most major objections have been addressed, rough consensus on this proposal has been reached. The last call for this proposal is next Monday 13th Jan 2020.<br>
>>>>> The purpose of this proposal is to restrict the propagation of BGP announcements of address space not yet issued by AFRINIC.<br>
>>>>> ? AFRINIC to create ROAs with origin AS0 (zero) for all unissued address space.<br>
>>>>> ? For space to be issued, ROAs with origin AS0 will have to be revoked, and ROAs with origin AS0 must not be visible in RPKI repositories.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> DAY2<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 6. Resource Transfer Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> The proposal did not reach consensus as some objections was raised such as the proposed No need basis<br>
>>>>> ? Allows for transfers of IPv4 resources (only) between AFRINIC and other regions.<br>
>>>>> ? No limit and conditions on resource size and frequency of transfers, as long as both parties mutually agree.<br>
>>>>> ? No needs assessment by AFRINIC on the recipient.<br>
>>>>> ? Legacy resources retain legacy resource status after transfer.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 7. M&A Resource Transfers (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-004-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-004-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached a consensus because of concerns about the necessity of this proposal has not been addressed. There are voices that the current system works well and that this proposal is pointless without an Inter RIR transfer policy. These remain unaddressed. <br>
>>>>> ? Because AFRINIC does not currently have a policy for transfers of resources as a result of M&A (Mergers and Acquisitions between companies), this proposal attempts to establish such a mechanism for such cases.<br>
>>>>> ? Only applicable to Intra-RIR cases (companies under the AFRINIC service region).<br>
>>>>> ? Replaces the current ?procedure document defined by staff? as this is not optimal and falls totally outside community control.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 8. IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope) ((Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv4-002-d3#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-ipv4-002-d3#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached consensus. The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and (some ASN) resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs, as well as between AFRINIC members/entities.<br>
>>>>> ? A transfer source can only receive additional resources after 24 months of the previous transfer<br>
>>>>> ? A resource can only be transferred after 12 months after issue.<br>
>>>>> ? IPv4 legacy resources lose that status after transfer.<br>
>>>>> ? Outgoing transfers cease if for 6 months, outgoing resources are more than incoming resources.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 9. Impact Analysis is Mandatory (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-005-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached a consensus because of concerns about the necessity and practicality of this proposal have not been addressed. <br>
>>>>> ? Modifies CPM 3.0 to make staff impact assessments of new proposals mandatory, along with other minor changes.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> ? Introduces new timelines for submission of draft proposals<br>
>>>>> ? Requires each new draft proposal to have a staff analysis 4 weeks after it?s received<br>
>>>>> ? If AFRINIC needs more time, the justification to be provided to community<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 10. Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC draft8 (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus )<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2016-gen-001-d8#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2016-gen-001-d8#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached consensus after many iterations spanning over 8 iterations spanning over 3 years (from May 2016).<br>
>>>>> The proposal sets a framework for AFRINIC to conduct reviews/audits of resource utilization by members (to ensure efficient and appropriate use).<br>
>>>>> ? Audits can be random or selected (by AFRINIC) or reported (by whistle-blower).<br>
>>>>> ? Resources not complying are recovered and can be reallocated.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>> Co-chairs have 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. 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. 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. A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process. <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 11. Proposal: AFRINIC Number Resources Transfer Policy (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-002-d2#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-002-d2#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached consensus. Concerns regarding the unclear wording about the assignment and the excessive amount of need for AFRINIC's approval have not been addressed.<br>
>>>>> ? Allows for transfers of IPv4 and ASN resources (only) between AFRINIC and other regions.<br>
>>>>> ? The recipient must demonstrate the need for the resources.<br>
>>>>> ? Legacy resources once transferred will lose that status and fall under RSA.<br>
>>>>> ? Reserved resources cannot be transferred.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> 12. Chairs Elections Process (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus)<br>
>>>>> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-007-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-gen-007-d1#proposal</a><br>
>>>>> Back to list for further discussion and refinement<br>
>>>>> This proposal has not reached consensus. Concerns on e-voting and the criteria of chair candidate have not been addressed. The policy was not supported by anyone during the Public Policy meeting<br>
>>>>> ? The proposal is an effort to improve the process for election/selection of Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) co-chairs.<br>
>>>>> ? Addresses conflict of interest issues.<br>
>>>>> ? Restrictions for co-chairs to be from different countries.<br>
>>>>> ? Co-Chairs must represent AFRINIC members or be nominated by AFRINIC members.<br>
>>>>> ? Must have been active on <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> list for at least 6 months.<br>
>>>>> ? Must present planned achievements<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Thank You <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Co-Chairs PDWG<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>> <br>
>>> <br>
>>> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal<br>
>>> <br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> RPD mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/2ac32cc5/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20191223/2ac32cc5/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 159, Issue 30<br>
************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>