<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif">Dear Jordi, <br><br>
First of all, you wrote and I quote:<br>
<br>
“As said, this is the current practice! The chairs can confirm that. We aren’t changing
this, just making sure that it is explicit in the PDP.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif">I feel like this statement is greatly misleading because the original policy
states that “the Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has been
achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.” While in your proposed policy it is
stated that “the Chairs have a maximum of 2 weeks to determine whether rough
consensus has been achieved (considering both list and meeting).” You are including a mailing list as a source for
determination of whether the “rough consensus” is achieved. <br>
<br>
Just like Cathie and Beatrix pointed out in the previous emails, making this explicit is dangerous
as it could open doors to potential manipulation. Could you please address this
point instead of dismissing it?<br>
<br>
Secondly, the clause 3.4.1 tries to sneak in a mandatory impact analysis
clause. I find it greatly problematic, considering that you already proposed a separate
policy that attempts to do precisely that. This comes across very contrived. I
think this point should be properly discussed in a separate policy instead of
piggybacking on this one.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:Cambria,serif"><br>
In addition, I think we should not have a definition of the rough consensus in
the CPM. The proposed definition is incomplete, and therefore could leave room
for misinterpretation. I think the section 3.1.1 should be scratched completely,
so that we can fall back on the initial definition proposed by the IETF.<br>
<br>
For the above reasons, I am strongly against
this policy.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Ekaterina Kay Kalugina</p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@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"><div lang="ES" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="gmail-m_-3342729029349295594WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">Hi Elvis,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">You’re missing the concept of consensus. It is important to read the relevant RFC (RFC7282). This is what we follow in RIRs.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">This is not a voting and this proposal is NOT about elections!<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">There is no such thing as “minor or major”. There is only “objection”. An objection is something that is demonstrated and not refuted by authors.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">Editorial details are a different thing.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">If in the last call there is an objection AND is not refuted by the authors (or it was refuted already during the discussion), the proposal must keep the consensus status. If there is a “new” objection that was not discovered before, then the chairs should declare no consensus and bring it back to discussion. Then the authors need to make a new version to address that objection.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">Now if the objection is resolved in that version and the new discussion in the list agree with that, why we need to wait for a new meeting?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">Or even more. If the objection was just a clarification on the text, to avoid a miss-interpretation, and a new version is done for that, why we need to wait for a new meeting presentation if we can agree on that in the list?<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">Everybody is able to participate in the list, this provides *<b>more</b>* opportunities to everybody. The meetings are only for the people than can pay for the traveling expenses, or if done virtually, have good internet connection to participate. And even in those cases, there is no “unlimited” time in the meetings (virtual or in-person) for everybody to express their objections, while emails have no limit!<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Jordi<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;color:black">@jordipalet<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 16/9/20 10:28, "Ibeanusi Elvis" <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" target="_blank">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear community, <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">In regards to this proposal, I do not concur with the objectives of this proposal. As already pointed out the issue of the process at which the consensus is attained creating unfairness within the community and the chances of email manipulations.Everyone should be given the opportunity to vote in an electoral structure of consensus attainment. Nevertheless, a major problem with this proposal is the last call. When a major objection is found during the last call procedure, it is meant to return to the discussion phase due to its inability to reach a consensus and inadvertently, the newer version of this proposal should make significant and meaningful changes in comparison with the old version that did not reach a consensus. No proposal should be returned with only few wording or grammatical, and spelling corrections made. <u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Best, Elvis <u></u><u></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:33 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p></div><blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hi Cathie,<br><br>The actual practice in AFRINIC, as the chairs can confirm or you can check with videos from the previous meetings, they *look* at the mailing list to determine consensus. What we do with this proposal is to make sure that the PDP make it explicit.<br><br>In all the other RIRs the mailing list is also looked by the chairs to determine consensus.<br><br>So if you oppose to the proposal because that, then we should cancel all the consensus determination done during all the last years?<br><br>Regards,<br>Jordi<br>@jordipalet<br><br><br><br>El 16/9/20 9:19, "Cathie Jay" <<a href="mailto:cathie.kay89@gmail.com" target="_blank">cathie.kay89@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br><br> Dear Jordi, dear community,<br><br> I oppose this policy because of the way in which consensus is reached.<br> The current policy stipulates that consensus should be reached through<br> the balancing of the mailing list and forum, and not during the PPM.<br> Such policy could pave the way for the intrusion of fake emails within<br> the discussion, which could endanger the process of reaching a fair<br> consensus, and jeopardize the process of policy-making. In addition,<br> it would significantly undermine the work of the co-chairs who will<br> facilitate the discussion.<br><br> All best wishes,<br><br> Cathie<br><br> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD<br> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > Hi Chloe,<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Exactly! I just responded to that to Gaby.<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Tks!<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Regards,<br> ><br> > Jordi<br> ><br> > @jordipalet<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > El 9/9/20 13:00, "Chloe Kung" <<a href="mailto:chloe.kung.public@gmail.com" target="_blank">chloe.kung.public@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Hi,<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > I actually think section 3.4.3 is adequate as the discussion period of each policy proposal is a good 8 weeks. If there is no major objection based on technical justification submitted during the 8 weeks, the chance of having one during the last call period is very small. Even so, the community still have more time than needed to address and discuss the matter. Also this section states and I quote "Within 1 week after the end of the last call, the Working Group Chairs shall confirm whether consensus is maintained.” So if there is such case, meaning the consensus cannot be maintained, it will fall back into the discussion period anyway.<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Best,<br> ><br> > Chloe<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br> ><br> ><br> > **********************************************<br> > IPv4 is over<br> > Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br> > <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" 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> > 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><br><br><br><br>**********************************************<br>IPv4 is over<br>Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br><a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" 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>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><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" 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>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>