<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:roboto,sans-serif;font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Dear Fernando, dear all, </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:roboto,sans-serif;font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">The section 3.4.3 clearly states that:</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:roboto,sans-serif;font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">"The Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved" </span><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">The process of evaluation involves carefully analyzing all the data and drawing the conclusions. This is exactly what the chairs did. They analyzed the data collected from both the mailing list and the PPM and drew their conclusions :on some policies rough consensus have been achieved provided that some minor objections are addressed. As a part of this process they also made the recommendations on how to address this objections.</span></font></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></font></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">They did not force of coerce anyone to do anything. They simply stated that if these objections were to be addressed, rough consensus could be achieved. However, this also means that if these are not addressed by the authors, then there is no rough consensus. It is as simple as that. </span></font></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></font></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Also, in no part of the CPM it says that the Chairs are not allowed suggest changes to the proposal in the process of determining whether rough consensus has been achieved. </span><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">I think the Chairs have done their roles within the purviews of the relevant regulations and I don’t think they’re obliged to answer our inquiries. They just merely consider them. So let us wait and see. </span></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div dir="auto"><br></div></span></font></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Finally, considering the fact that the AFRINIC resource pool is quickly diminishing, not passing a Inter RIR transfer policy that is compatible with ARIN could be detrimental to the economic future of the region. So there is a certain sense of urgency that is impossible to deny.</span></font></div><div dir="auto"><font color="#333333" face="roboto, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14.4px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></font></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Thus, I believe we all should put aside our bitterness and ask ourselves what is actually the best for the AFRINIC community. In my view, since time is running out, we must ensure that AFRINIC has an established way to receive resources before the local pool is completely exhausted. </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">What do you think? </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Best wishes, </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Kay </span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 25 Sep 2020, 16:21 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>In no part of the CPM says that Chairs' role is to suggest
changes in the proposals, but to determine rough consensus has
been achieved or not.</p>
<p>It was mentioned all they did was in good faith and I am not
seeming people disputing that. However even considering they did
in good faith if they committed a mistake they must repair that by
taking some of the proposals out of last call and brig back to
discussion.<br>
I am hoping they are carefully evaluating all the recent comments
and can take the right decision in the benefit of the region by
the due date.<br>
</p>
<p>As I have been saying, more important than get a supposedly
needed policy as soon as possible is to get it right.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 24/09/2020 20:38, lucilla fornaro
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hello Jordi and everyone,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>I have to disagree with pretty much every point, in
particular, for what concerns points 1 and 2.</div>
<div>First of all, the use of words should be highly
pondered. Coercion is a serious business and it is a
tactic that violates the principles of AFRINIC. You seem
to say that Co-chairs used coercion as a threat of
penalty to induce authors to agree to avoid unpleasant
outcomes. This is completely wrong!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chairs job is to address major objections and suggest
changes which is part of their administrative work and
Co-chairs did a very good job in that sense.
Furthermore, it is not forbidden and they did it in good
faith. I see no force and no coercion in any of their
suggestions.</div>
</div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">regards,</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Lucilla </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"> </span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno gio 24 set 2020 alle
ore 01:06 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word" lang="ES">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">HI AK, all,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">I’ve confronted feelings myself. Somehow,
I will like to support how you tried to take decisions
(pending on a concrete analysis for each proposal,
that I’ve not got the time to do yet) and the way you
declared consensus, so we can make some progress,
especially for finally resolving the Inter-RIR issue
which I think it is extremely urgent for AFRINIC
assuming that it is implementable and functional,
otherwise, it is just a waste of time.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">However, there are several points that
are clearly violations of the PDP. And I’m saying this
even it is clearly against one of my own proposal
which reached consensus (based on your decision), but
as community, we must be clear and honest regardless
of being against us as authors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Let me try to explain every point,
following the PDP in our CPM:</span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Section 3.3. As it has been said
earlier the chairs are there to perform
administrative functions (manage the meeting, the
list, determine consensus). There is no
authorization in the PDP to allow you to “force
authors” to “change this or that” if you want your
proposal to reach consensus.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">I fully understand the goal and I
applaud it, but then it must be given *<b>the same
opportunity</b>* to all the proposals, otherwise
you’re acting in a discriminatory way towards
different proposals. At the end even in the extreme
case, if all the proposal reach consensus, it is not
really relevant because if authors agree or not to
do changes that still don’t like to the community,
they will fail in the last call. So, it is fine that
you suggest to authors what do you believe are
“nits” to avoid failure in the last call, but not
actually coercing them to apply specific changes. In
the meeting, during the open mic, you were
suggesting that the “simple PDP update” can also
reach consensus if I agree to some changes. I was
not capturing your point until I saw the video a day
after. Even in the video you can see that some
audio/video is missing, and the actual audio that I
was getting during the video was not good at that
time. It is not a complain about that specific
proposal, just an example. So, do you think that’s
fair? If you really want to give the authors a
chance during the last call, the way to do it is *<b>before</b>*
the open mic, talking to them. In fact, as we
discussed a few days ago, you didn’t have to declare
consensus in the open mic, as Alain suggested, it
can be done a couple of days after, so you’ve time
to coordinate with the authors, they can already
send a revised version, etc.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">This PDP (3.4.3) doesn’t allow changes
for the last call or right before it. In other PDP
of other RIRs there is an explicit “editorial
changes are allowed”. We don’t have that. Even if we
have that, what is an editorial change? We have
actually a problem with that in the last LACNIC
meeting. For me an editorial change is only
correcting grammar or mistakes, but not amending a
full section. The practice that we followed in
AFRINIC has been to accept this type of changes only
(correct mistakes, remove superfluous text, clarify
text) but not *<b>change conditions in the policies</b>*.
Again, I applaud the goal, but is not right, and it
is a clear matter for a valid appeal.</span></li>
</ol>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Note
something else, that I’ve said many times, in all
the RIRs. I see the chairs as super-heroes. I’m
happy to prepare and defend other 100 proposals, but
not to be a chair, so my sincere admiration towards
you. However, that doesn’t imply that, as humans,
you can make mistakes and that’s also why the PDP
provides (3.5.1) a conflict resolution that includes
raising the issues with you. Otherwise, anyone in
the community is able to appeal, not just for any
specific proposal, but for the general decisions
taken in the meeting. So my suggestion to avoid that
is that you should reconsider your decisions and
clarify what is a valid-objection and what is not
for each proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">In
the worst case, if the community is not satisfied we
can also follow the recall process (3.5.3), but
hopefully we don’t need to go for that and repeat
the full meeting, etc. It will also take time for
the board to call for the recall committee, etc.
Let’s avoid it and that means that you react to the
different open questions, in general and for each
proposal.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">That
said, providing solutions, for the most urgent
policy that this region needs, the Inter-RIR, we can
resolve the issue, if it fails the last call or
there is an valid appeal, using the Varying the
process (3.6) PDP section. This still will mean we
lost 2-3 months. The other alternative is what I
proposed the other day. Asking the board to call for
a focussed meeting in December, may be just for
Inter-RIR, or may be 3-4 sessions of 1-2 hours for
sets of proposals, grouped in similar aspects.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I’m
also still wainting your detailed responses, and
also from the staff (for some points) to my emails
on the morning of 21/9/2020 regarding two of my
proposals. Please follow up ASAP.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I
will be sending, still very busy, sorry about that,
specific emails for each of the other policy
proposals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El
22/9/20 23:46, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>
escribió:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear Gregoire,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Thank
you. Your concerns are noted. We would endure that
we come up with the best solution for the region
based on openness, transparency and fairness. We
have not broken any section of the CPM rather we
upheld the CPM. 3.2.3 of the CPM says</p>
</div>
<h3 style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:35.4pt;box-sizing:border-box"><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117);font-weight:normal">3.2.3 Fairness</span></h3>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117)">The
policies are to ensure fair distribution of
resources and facilitating the operation of the
Internet. </span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:red">Actions
are taken within a reasonable period of time.</span><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">3.4.2
.... <span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117)">The
Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has
been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117)">Co-
Chair PDWG</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On
Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 5:30 PM Gregoire EHOUMI <<a href="mailto:gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style:none none none solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear
Co-chairs and WG </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br>
During the AFRINIC-32 PPM which was held last
week, the proceedings and decisions made by
cochairs, raised many concerns. Below are some
of them.<br>
The video of the meeting is publicly available.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Concern-1 objections management<br>
————</b><br>
cochairs chose some objections raised and even
not-raised, did not say why comments and
explanations provided by authors and the
participants on the raised and discussed issues
were unsatisfactory. <br>
<br>
Few examples<br>
<br>
<span>⁃</span> Abuse
contact proposal<br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to
co-chairs decisions were:<br>
• Definition of abuse<br>
• GDPR compliance <br>
• Impact of legacy resources<br>
<br>
<br>
<span>⁃</span> RPKI ROAs
for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address
Spaces <br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to
cochairs were:<br>
• AS0 ROA validity<br>
• Certain fear in the community that this
proposal may help staff reclaim resources if
members failed to pay membership fees.<br>
• Lack of a certain mitigation provision APNIC
has in their policy<br>
<br>
-WG guidelines and procedures<br>
<br>
The valid and unresolved objections according to
cochairs were:<br>
<br>
• the proposed appointment of cochairs by
consensus will create more problems for this
community. <br>
• Cochairs should not have hands in consensus <br>
• also Board interference.<br>
<br>
<span>⁃</span> Inter-RIR
transfer proposals <br>
<br>
On the 3 proposals being discussed <br>
<br>
Cochairs decided that :<br>
• one is far from reaching consensus as
incompatible with ARIN as per staff.<br>
• The other 2 are closer</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br>
<b><br>
Concern-2 fairness in the proceeding <br>
——————————————————</b><br>
• When rendering their decisions and contrary to
what was announced, Cochairs did not question
all authors of transfer policy proposals showing
bias<br>
<br>
• Staff’s demand to the WG to allow them to
request official compatibility analysis on each
of the proposals from other RIRs was denied <br>
<br>
• Authors were not even given chance to respond
to the point with ARIN <br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Concern-3 unilateral decisions by cochairs<br>
————————————————————</b><br>
• cochairs decided that Afrinic service region
need an inter-RIR transfer policy as matter as
urgency and can’t wait anymore <br>
<br>
• Cochairs decided that among the 3 proposals,
the one which aims to establish an efficient and
business-friendly mechanism to allow a number of
resources to be transferred from/to other
regions, should be pushed forward <br>
<br>
• Cochairs refused to consider the issues and
the implementation challenges raised by the
staff impact assessment on proposal<br>
<br>
• Cochairs decided on which amendments should be
made to the selected proposal for it to move
forward.<br>
<br>
1- Add 12 months delay for a source to be
eligible to receive allocation from AFRINIC<br>
<br>
2- Remove clause for legacy status after
transfer <br>
<br>
3-Fix clarity on notifications to the other RIRs
after the transfer<br>
<br>
It is obvious that 1) contradicts both problem
statement and solution of the proposal preferred
by cochairs.<br>
<br>
Cochairs appear to be deciding and injecting new
issues not previously mentioned in working
group. Not following due process of hearing
authors and the hurry to decide for working
group is unacceptable. The cochairs report must
rather provide an open issues list of
outstanding issues for working group to
deliberate on. There had been no attempt by
cochairs to gauge consensus throughout the
meeting. <br>
<br>
In the view of all these violations of the PDP,
I urge you to reconsider all decisions made
during the last PPM and give chance to the WG to
appropriately address the open issues and come
to the best conclusions for the region.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Gregoire Ehoumi ( on behalf of the authors of WG
guidelines and procedures and AFRINIC Number
Ressources transfer proposals)</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black">-------- Original
message --------</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black">From: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE
<<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black">Date: 2020-09-20 8:06
p.m. (GMT-05:00) </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black">To: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black">Subject: [rpd] Decisions
and summary on policy proposals discussed
during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC
32) </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br clear="all">
</p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Dear
PDWG Members,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> Please
find below a
summary for
each of the
proposal
discussed during
the just
concluded
online policy
meeting of
AFRINIC 32 </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">1.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Simple
PDP Update </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">This
policy defines
consensus. It
also proposes
that a policy
discussed at
the PPM does
not need to
come back for
another PPM
for the
Co-chairs to
arrive at a
decision. This
can help in
streamlining
the work
during the PPM
and encourages
people to use
the mailing
list. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">There
were lots of
irrelevant
objections on
the mailing
list such as
someone
registering
many emails.
We believe
that this does
not matter
because rough
consensus is
not about
numbers but
quality
objections.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">However,
there is
strong
opposition to
this policy
based on the
following: </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Oppose
the policy
because of the
way the
consensus is
reached. This
proposal
proposes that
the consensus
be reached
through a
balance of the
mailing
list/forum and
not at the
PPM. This
endangers fair
consensus and
hijacks the
policymaking
process. Based
on experience,
it is during
the PPM that
most community
members focus
on policies. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around how the
chairs should
drop
proposals.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Trust
in the mailing
list: Some
strongly
believe that
anonymous
contribution
should be
allowed while
some believes
it should not.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around having
more than 1
PPM per year
and Online PPM
because of
volunteer
burnout. We
are all
volunteers and
it’s a night
job for us.
More PPMs mean
more time to
volunteer and
more chances
for burnouts </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Some
members of the
Community
thinks only
burning or
polarizing
issues should
be brought to
the PPM.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No
Consensus</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">2.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">PDP
Working Group
</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims
at allowing
most of the
decisions
including
chair
elections to
be determined
via
consensus.
This can be
reasonable
when the
community has
the same goal.
However, there
were a number
of objections
to it. These
are:</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Entrusting
the WG to make
their
decisions by
consensus and
the
appointment of
their
co-chairs by
consensus do
not make sense
and is only
utopic.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">People
are not policy
proposals, and
thus choosing
by consensus
is splitting
hairs with the
election
process we
already have.
Save the
consensus for
the proposals,
and the
election for
people.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Consensus
may even take
months, and
this can’t fly
when we want
to put people
in the vacant
roles.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Co-chairs
should not
have a hand in
the consensus,
but only sit
back and let
the community
decide for
themselves.
Additionally,
the consensus
process is not
feasible with
a deadline.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Focus
on polishing
the current
electoral
process
instead of
complicating
other untested
forms of
“election”.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">f.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">The
current status
quo’s election
should be the
only option in
choosing for
the roles, and
not through
less
transparent
means.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">g.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Board
would be
interfering
too much on
issues that
deal with PDP</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision:
No Consensus</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">3.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Election
Process </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims
at introducing
an online
voting system
for the
Co-Chairs
election. The
following are
the opposition
to this
proposal. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">This
policy reduces
participation.
Equal
representation
is violated
because the
board has
unprecedented
power. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">There
is also not
enough
information on
the logistics
of the vote
(e-voting).</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">There
is a
contradiction
<s>on </s>when
the term ends
during the
meeting. “The
term ends
during the
first PPM
corresponding
to the end of
the term for
which they
were
appointed” is
not clear
enough, and “A
term may begin
or end no
sooner than
the first day
of the PPM and
no later than
the last day
of the PPM as
determined by
mutual
agreement of
the current
Chair and the
new Chair”
contradicts
each other.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Gender
restriction on
3.3.1.3 , some
community
members argue
it is
impractical
and maybe even
unfair if we
force both
chairs to have
different
genders.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Issues
around which
voter's
register
should be
adopted </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No
Consensus</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">4.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Board
Prerogatives </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">This
proposal aims
at clarifying
how the board
and the PDWG
works.
However, there
were a few
oppositions to
this proposal
except for a
specific
section. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">It
seems like a
piecemeal
approach to
dealing with
issues. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Opposition
to the section
below</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><i><span lang="EN-PH">“As
an exception
of the
preceding
paragraph, in
the absence of
elections
processes for
aspects
related to the
PDP
(co-chairs,
appeal
committee),
those aspects
will be still
handled by the
board in
consultation
with the
community.
However, this
is also a
temporary
measure and
also specific
draft policy
proposals
should be
introduced for
that</span></i><span lang="EN-PH">”.
The authors
agreed to
remove the
above section
hence</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision:
Consensus
provided the
above section
is removed </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">5.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Policy
Compliance
Dashboard</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">The
policy
proposal seeks
to provide a
framework or a
policy
compliance
dashboard be
developed by
AFRINIC and
incorporated
in myAFRINIC
(and future
member’s
communication
platforms).
It will allow
a periodic
review of the
policy
compliance
status of each
member. It
will also
enable members
to receive
automated
notifications
for any issue.
Staff will
receive
repeated
warnings of
lack of
compliance or
severe
violations
enshrined in
the CPM.
However, there
are several
oppositions to
this proposal,
such as:</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">This
policy seems
to be
redundant of
the status quo
as violations
are already
checked and
processed by
the human
staff.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">There
is already an
existing
system of
guidelines on
keeping track
of the
violations of
members.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">The
policy is not
binding and
does not
enforce
members
actually to
follow the
rules and not
violate
policies. </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Ignorance
could be a
convenient
excuse for
violations
because one
could claim
that they
never got
notified about
their
violations.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">There
is no
comprehensive
system on how
the board
should take
proper actions
once members
violate
policies, nor
does it give
guidelines
based on the
severity of
the
violations.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">f.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">This
policy takes
away resources
that could be
used for more
beneficial
pursuits to
AFRINIC for
something
existing in
the system.</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">g.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">It
an
administrative
process, and
this should be
left to staff</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: NO
rough
Consensus</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">6.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Abuse
Contact Update
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal makes
it mandatory
for AFRINIC to
include in
each resource
registration,
a contact
where network
abuse from
users of those
resources will
be reported.
The proposal
whois DB
attribute
(abuse-c) to
be used to
publish abuse
public contact
information.
There’s also a
process to
ensure that
the recipient
must receive
abuse report
and that
contacts are
validated by
AFRINIC
regularly.
However, there
some
opposition to
the proposal
there are:</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Staff
analysis on
how it affects
legacy holder
not
conclusive
(not sure why
this should
affect legacy
holders) </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal
doesn’t state
what will be
the
consequences
of one member
fails to
comply. Why
are we
creating the
abuse contact
when there is
no consequence
for not
providing the
abuse contact
</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Abuse
contact email
and issues
with GDPR
concerning the
whois database</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">No
proper
definition of
the term Abuse</span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">To
force members
to reply to
their abuse
email is not
in the scope
of AFRINIC.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">Chairs
Decision: No
rough
consensus </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">7.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">RPKI
ROAs for
Unallocated
and Unassigned
AFRINIC
Address Space</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">The
proposal
instructs
AFRINIC to
create ROAs
for all
unallocated
and unassigned
address space
under its
control. This
will enable
networks
performing
RPKI-based BGP
Origin
Validation to
easily reject
all the bogon
announcements
covering
resources
managed by
AFRINIC.
However, there
are many
oppositions
such as: </span></p>
<p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH">
</span><span lang="EN-PH">Allowing
resource
holders to
create AS0/
ROA will lead
to an increase
of even more
invalid
</span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>