<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class="">While carefully reading all the interactions - like others I remain very concerned about all other proposals/mechanisms that have not reached consensus… And yet the one who I think “we” as region are not fully prepared “yet” has magically been advanced to "rough consensus”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Going back to the e-mail from Gregoire on 21/09/2020 I fully share the same concerns specially on concern-3 regarding the unilateral decisions made by the Co-Chairs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It would be very grateful and appreciated by the community - if the Co-Chairs could came up ASAP with facts & figures on how they came up with the previous conclusion. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,</div><div class="">Darwin-.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 25 Sep 2020, at 11:40, Gaby Giner <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" class="">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Hi everyone, </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I agree with Ibeanusi but would like to add just one point.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">There's a maxim that goes "the neccessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Coercion is a serious allegation. As such, it'd be best for the interest of the community that those who claim coercion was exerted against the authors to substantiate their claim with solid evidence.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">My point is, we can't just go on making baseless accusation against one another, that's it.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Thanks, Gaby.</div><br class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 12:06 PM Ibeanusi Elvis, <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" class="">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class="">Dear Jordi, dear community, <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regarding the issues of the violation of the PDP as pointed out by Jordi that the co-chairs did during the African Internet Summit Online 2020. First, there is no form of coercion or use of force. The co-chairs carried out their administrative function which included making suggestions not forcing. Hence, the authors have the choice to make, whether to adhere to the suggestions of the co-chairs and make change or not. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This is the exact definition of an administrative function in regards to the major objections so that the policy can reach consensus. There is outrightly a freedom of choice to change or not which is to be decided entirely by the authors no coercing. I think your arguments should more like a paranoia. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Review and revise your policy taking into consideration the major objections outlined by the co-chairs if you want it to reach a consensus. The PDP which you highlighted that the co-chairs have violated allows and does not forbid the co-chairs from make suggestions. As pointed out by Lucilla, this functions conducted by the co-chairs were carried out in good faith on behalf of the PDWG and the AFRINIC. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Best regards, </div><div class="">Elvis </div><div class=""><br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Sep 25, 2020, at 8:40, lucilla fornaro <<a href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hello Jordi and everyone,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">I have to disagree with pretty much every point, in particular, for what concerns points 1 and 2.</div><div class="">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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" class="">regards,</span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" class="">Lucilla </span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" class=""> </span></div></div></div></div><br class=""><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> ha scritto:<br class=""></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 lang="ES" style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">HI AK, all,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">Let me try to explain every point, following the PDP in our CPM:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1" class=""><li style="margin-left:0cm" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></li><li style="margin-left:0cm" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">I fully understand the goal and I applaud it, but then it must be given *<b class="">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 class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></li><li style="margin-left:0cm" class=""><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class="">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 class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></li></ol><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">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.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">I will be sending, still very busy, sorry about that, specific emails for each of the other policy proposals.<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">Regards,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">Jordi<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">@jordipalet<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 12pt;" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 22/9/20 23:46, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> escribió:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear Gregoire,<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><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<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><h3 style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:7.5pt;margin-left:35.4pt;box-sizing:border-box" class=""><span style="font-size:18pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117);font-weight:normal" class="">3.2.3 Fairness<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></h3><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117)" class="">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" class="">Actions are taken within a reasonable period of time.</span><span style="color:red" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><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)" class="">The Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117)" class="">Co- Chair PDWG</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr</a>> wrote:<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></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" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear Co-chairs and WG <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br class="">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 class="">The video of the meeting is publicly available.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><b class="">Concern-1 objections management<br class="">————</b><br class="">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 class=""><br class="">Few examples<br class=""><br class=""><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif" class="">⁃</span> Abuse contact proposal<br class=""><br class="">The valid and unresolved objections according to co-chairs decisions were:<br class="">• Definition of abuse<br class="">• GDPR compliance <br class="">• Impact of legacy resources<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif" class="">⁃</span> RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Spaces <br class=""><br class="">The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:<br class="">• AS0 ROA validity<br class="">• Certain fear in the community that this proposal may help staff reclaim resources if members failed to pay membership fees.<br class="">• Lack of a certain mitigation provision APNIC has in their policy<br class=""><br class="">-WG guidelines and procedures<br class=""><br class="">The valid and unresolved objections according to cochairs were:<br class=""><br class="">• the proposed appointment of cochairs by consensus will create more problems for this community. <br class="">• Cochairs should not have hands in consensus <br class="">• also Board interference.<br class=""><br class=""><span style="font-family:"Segoe UI Symbol",sans-serif" class="">⁃</span> Inter-RIR transfer proposals <br class=""><br class="">On the 3 proposals being discussed <br class=""><br class="">Cochairs decided that :<br class="">• one is far from reaching consensus as incompatible with ARIN as per staff.<br class="">• The other 2 are closer<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br class=""><b class=""><br class="">Concern-2 fairness in the proceeding <br class="">——————————————————</b><br class="">• When rendering their decisions and contrary to what was announced, Cochairs did not question all authors of transfer policy proposals showing bias<br class=""><br class="">• 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 class=""><br class="">• Authors were not even given chance to respond to the point with ARIN <br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><b class="">Concern-3 unilateral decisions by cochairs<br class="">————————————————————</b><br class="">• cochairs decided that Afrinic service region need an inter-RIR transfer policy as matter as urgency and can’t wait anymore <br class=""><br class="">• 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 class=""><br class="">• Cochairs refused to consider the issues and the implementation challenges raised by the staff impact assessment on proposal<br class=""><br class="">• Cochairs decided on which amendments should be made to the selected proposal for it to move forward.<br class=""><br class="">1- Add 12 months delay for a source to be eligible to receive allocation from AFRINIC<br class=""><br class="">2- Remove clause for legacy status after transfer <br class=""><br class="">3-Fix clarity on notifications to the other RIRs after the transfer<br class=""><br class="">It is obvious that 1) contradicts both problem statement and solution of the proposal preferred by cochairs.<br class=""><br class="">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 class=""><br class="">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 class=""><br class="">--<br class="">Gregoire Ehoumi ( on behalf of the authors of WG guidelines and procedures and AFRINIC Number Ressources transfer proposals)<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class="">-------- Original message --------<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class="">From: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class="">Date: 2020-09-20 8:06 p.m. (GMT-05:00) <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class="">To: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class="">Subject: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="" class=""><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></span></p></div></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><br clear="all" class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Dear PDWG Members,</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> Please find below a summary for each of the proposal discussed during the just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32 </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">1.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Simple PDP Update </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">However, there is strong opposition to this policy based on the following: </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Issues around how the chairs should drop proposals.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly believe that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some believes it should not.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Some members of the Community thinks only burning or polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No Consensus</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">2.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">PDP Working Group </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Consensus may even take months, and this can’t fly when we want to put people in the vacant roles.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Focus on polishing the current electoral process instead of complicating other untested forms of “election”.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">f.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">The current status quo’s election should be the only option in choosing for the roles, and not through less transparent means.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">g.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Board would be interfering too much on issues that deal with PDP</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No Consensus</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">3.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Election Process </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This proposal aims at introducing an online voting system for the Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to this proposal. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This policy reduces participation. Equal representation is violated because the board has unprecedented power. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">There is also not enough information on the logistics of the vote (e-voting).</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">There is a contradiction <s class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Issues around which voter's register should be adopted </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No Consensus</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">4.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Board Prerogatives </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">It seems like a piecemeal approach to dealing with issues. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Opposition to the section below</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><i class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">“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" class="">”. The authors agreed to remove the above section hence</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section is removed </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">5.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Policy Compliance Dashboard</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This policy seems to be redundant of the status quo as violations are already checked and processed by the human staff.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">There is already an existing system of guidelines on keeping track of the violations of members.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">The policy is not binding and does not enforce members actually to follow the rules and not violate policies. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Ignorance could be a convenient excuse for violations because one could claim that they never got notified about their violations.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">f.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This policy takes away resources that could be used for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something existing in the system.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">g.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">It an administrative process, and this should be left to staff</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: NO rough Consensus</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">6.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Abuse Contact Update </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Staff analysis on how it affects legacy holder not conclusive (not sure why this should affect legacy holders) </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR concerning the whois database</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">No proper definition of the term Abuse</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the scope of AFRINIC.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No rough consensus </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">7.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">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><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new allocation doesn’t match. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Other RIRs don’t have a similar the policy therefore, it can not be effective</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally implemented, which causes additional stress. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">e.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Validity period: if members decide to implement it, is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too long?</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">f.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">g.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an address in error?</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">h.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">It also might affect the neighbours and involves monitoring of unallocated spaces.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">i.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet to pay dues.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:170.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a)</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be limited to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a legacy allocation.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:170.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b)</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">AFRINIC should require the explicit consent of the previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed, returned, etc, space.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:170.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c)</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Any ROAs issued under this policy should be issued and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a relying party to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:170.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d)</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">The proposal should include the clause “as used in APNIC as to dues not paid on time.”</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No consensus</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">8.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and (some ASN) resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between AFRINIC members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the source and recipient based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR transfers will be suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the incoming ones for six consecutive months. However, there are oppositions to it</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">ASN Transfer is not necessary</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Issue of board inferring: no board in all of the five RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or allocating IP address. It is not the board's responsibility.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Suspending clause with no reinstalling clause. This mainly makes the policy potentially invalid. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No consensus.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">9.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Not realistic for one-way inter RIR resource transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would never happen as only global resources can come in and go out </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">It would be difficult for the recipient to follow the rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">c.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">No need for ASN transfer. If one is moving regions and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can request and receive from the local RIRs</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">d.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Additional attributes create none-operational complexity in the whois database.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: No consensus.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">10.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Resource Transfer Policy</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it has the following opposition </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">a.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Issues with Legacy holder transfer is potentially considered none-reciprocal by ARIN</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:125.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">b.</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without the time limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3 competing proposals. However because of the community’s desire and clear expression for the need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the Co-chairs, believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on a proposal rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly expressed at the AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the authors of this proposal make the following amendments: </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-family:Symbol" class="">·</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">5.7.3.2 Source entities are not eligible to receive further IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months period after the transfer.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-family:Symbol" class="">·</span><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><span lang="EN-PH" class="">5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be regarded as legacy resources.</span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the decisions is Rough Consensus is achieved </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class=""> </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Based on the above, The updated version of the follow proposal which achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG website </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><b class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">1.</span></b><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><b class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Board Prerogatives </span></b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:71.4pt;line-height:106%" class=""><b class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">2.</span></b><span lang="EN-PH" style="font-size:7pt;line-height:106%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif" class=""> </span><b class=""><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Resource Transfer Policy</span></b><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8pt;margin-left:35.4pt;line-height:106%"><span lang="EN-PH" class="">Therefore, these two policies are now on last call. </span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" class=""><br class="">Co-Chair <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12pt" class="">PDWG<u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class=""><span style="font-size:14.5pt" class="">Website</span></a><span style="font-size:14.5pt" class="">, <a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">PGPortal</a></span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div></div></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class=""><span style="font-size:14.5pt" class="">Website</span></a><span style="font-size:14.5pt" class="">, <a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">PGPortal</a></span><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u class=""></u> <u class=""></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></p></div><br class="">**********************************************<br class="">
IPv4 is over<br class="">
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br class="">
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br class="">
The IPv6 Company<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
<span class="">_______________________________________________</span><br class=""><span class="">RPD mailing list</span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br class=""></div></blockquote></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>