<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Ekaterina,</p>
<p>I believe we all agree that we want to get a transfer policy
passed as soon as reasonably possible. I don't think anyone is
disputing the urgency.</p>
<p>We are disputing the process taken, as well as the content of the
specific policy (and I sincerely hope I'm looking at the right one
since there are three possible ones on the site) being ratified
now.<br>
</p>
<p>Nothing that affects me or my employer directly, so frankly - for
me this is one of those "for the greater good" issues.<br>
</p>
<p>As Jordi, amongst others, has pointed out, a CHANGE to the policy
in order to try and make it reciprocal has been introduced at the
very last minute, specifically relating to legacy resources.
Specifically around 5.7.4.3,</p>
<p>Currently worded as:<br>
<br>
Transferred IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as
legacy resources.</p>
<p>Proposed wording:<br>
<br>
Transferred legacy resources will still be regarded as legacy
resources.</p>
<p>Ref:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3#proposal">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3#proposal</a><br>
</p>
<p>Further more, as per <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals</a> this
policy is still "Under Discussion".<br>
</p>
<p>The above means:<br>
<br>
1. Previously, when transfer of legacy resources happened, inside
of AfriNIC, they lost legacy status, and the holders of those
resources would then be bound by the policy manual.</p>
<p>2. Updated wording means that this is no longer the case, and
legacy status is retained.</p>
<p>This is a complete inversion.</p>
<p>Others have stated the issues with these legacy resources and why
we should aim to reduce them, and not keep them around longer than
required.</p>
<p>We can't prescribe to other RIRs. As such, the historic 5.7.4.3
would not be reciprocal with the inter-RIR transfer policies of
other RIRs. We don't want to compound the problem.</p>
<p>As such, this only sensible solution is to allow legacy resources
to retain legacy status as per policy of recipient RIR, which if
AFRINIC is the recipient, or this is an intra-AFRINIC transfer (to
which the policy previously applied) is that it loses status. As
such, 5.7.4.3 could be better worded as "Transferred IPv4 legacy
resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources if the
recipient is an AFRINIC member" or "... if the recipient RIR is
AFRINIC". This maintains the status quo for intra-RIR transfers,
and enforces it for inbound transfers, but says nothing for
outbound.<br>
</p>
<p>Now we can go on to 5.7.3.1 as well, and indicate that this means
that the *source* of the resources must comply with the policies
of the recipient RIR ... which cannot possibly be the case if the
source is not AFRINIC. The source must comply with the policies
of the source RIR, and the recipient with those of the recipient
RIR ... but that is NOT what the proposed clause states.<br>
</p>
<p>The proposal mucks up the grammar for 5.7.3.2 without changing
the meaning in any meaningful way in the attempt to change
tenses. Two fixes, leave as per the old wording or fix the
grammar. Both carries the same intent and meaning so this could
be left as current, or "for<b> a</b> 12 month period after" (this
really is a nitpick and grammatical fix). Not that my grammar is
as good as it should be.</p>
<p>In 5.7.4.1 the need for an intra-RIR (AFRNIC to AFRINIC) to show
need for resources is dropped. This is a MAJOR policy change.
Again, the intent is clear, but it's not what's stated. As far as
I can see the extra sentence "<strong>A transfer from another RIR
to AFRINIC requires a need-based evaluation.</strong>" was
simply added in front of the policy. Perhaps the first sentence
of the original clause just needs to be updated, "AFRINIC must, in
the case where the recipient is an AFRINIC member, approve the
recipient's need for the IPv4 number resources." As I understand
this was the intention of the change, this says nothing of
recipients in other RIRs, as the former wording did, but also
doesn't negate this for intra-AFRINIC transfers.<br>
</p>
<p>Most of the above really are major objections in my view and
understanding, it actually stops the policy from working, or
reverses completely what's currently in the CPM. In my opinion
these are easily fixed, so why not fix it? Or has this been done
already and we simply just don't have visibility onto that which
has been passed into last call and now ratified? As far as I'm
concerned, the state on this policy is still "Under Discussion" as
that's what is stated on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals</a></p>
<p>I further make note that draft 2 isn't available in any form.
And there is a HUGE variance between draft 1 and draft 3 (which
has been released 21 Sept 2020). And there is a discrepancy
between this date on the main proposal listing (proposals) and the
one on <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2019-v4-003-d3</a></p>
<p>So let's take a step back here, some are saying any objections
after 2nd of October should be ignored. So let's step two weeks
back, that takes us to 18 September. So you're telling me a
policy was sent to last call before it was even released?</p>
<p>This does not and cannot possibly be right.<br>
</p>
<p>There is no staff impact assessment available either.</p>
<p>I do not see how this could have gone to last call, never mind
ratification.<br>
</p>
<p>Kind Regards,<br>
Jaco<br>
</p>
<p>On 2020/10/08 19:52, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHS7WUC1P=X=3O0DLPtCt6812pxj+xLOQ59vNW6gRppKKAemwg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Dear all,
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div dir="auto">The objections to this policy were not major
objections. Therefore, the chairs performed the
administrative function within the scope of the CPM.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In addition, none of us are 'fans' of the
proposed policy. It's just some of our colleges including
myself see a great value and need in passing this policy as
soon as possible.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Let us not try to downplay the danger of the
situation. Stability of the region must be preserved. Not
having an inter RIR policy on time could be detrimental.
Especially in these unprecedented times we must take every
step. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The CPM is there to ensure the best future for
the region. This should be our main focus. And it seems to
me that between all these squabbles and passive aggressive
statements many of you lost sight of what is actually
important here. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In my view, it's important to create a safe
net instead of raging over minor technicalities of the PDP. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I think it makes more sense to advocate for
preventative care rather than suffer the consequences of the
terribly uncertain future. Wouldn't you agree? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ekaterina </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 8 Oct 2020, 19:11
Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">I agree with Jordi on this.
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is a total mess between the policy
proposal versions and the discussions. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I can see that the co-chairs did not take
into account outstanding objections.<br>
<br>
Therefore, I urge co-chairs to reconsider this decision. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">--<br>
Gregoire </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct. 8, 2020 3:42 a.m., JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">Hi Moses, all,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">I feel that there is
a fundamental mistake here and I beg you to
reconsider it.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">You've not waited
for the staff confirmation about the reciprocity
of the Inter-RIR transfers. What happens if now
the staff comes back and confirms that we can’t
decide in our policy what do to in other
regions, so there is no reciprocity and so, we
can’t implement this policy?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">Accordingly, I
strongly suggest that you change your mind,
following section 3.5 of the PDP: “A person who
disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s)
shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s)
or with the PDWG”.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt">The reasons for this
are:</span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:12pt">The only valid proposal
version is the one that is published at the
web site and then announced to the list. The
authors did changes several times, that aren’t
there. As we are discussing version 2, we
should have a version 2.x to show those.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:12pt">The staff must confirm
the reciprocity of the last 2.x version in the
list. As indicated in 3.4.3, you can extend
the last-call to ensure that this is matched.</span></li>
<li style="margin-left:0cm"><span
style="font-size:12pt">This and other aspects,
have been indicated several times by myself
and others during the last-call. Those are
valid-objections that remain unresolved and if
you extend the last-call and agree with the
latest changes from the authors, then could
make sense, otherwise, it is impossible that
you can declare the last-call and still
“consensus”.</span></li>
</ol>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Regards,</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Jordi</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black">@jordipalet</span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 8/10/20 1:37,
"Moses Serugo" <<a
href="mailto:moses.serugo@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">moses.serugo@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="color:#1f4e79">Hello PDWG members,</span><span
style="color:#000099"></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="color:#1f4e79"> </span><span
style="color:#000099"></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="color:#1f4e79">Following the last
online PPM held on 16<sup>th</sup>-17<sup>th</sup>
September 2020. Last call was announced on
21<sup>st</sup> September 2020 for the
following policy proposals.</span><span
style="color:#000099"></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:71.4pt"><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'symbol';color:#000099">·<span
style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;color:#1f4e79">Board
Prerogatives on the PDP</span><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;color:#000099"></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:71.4pt"><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:'symbol';color:#000099">·<span
style="font:7pt 'times new roman'">
</span></span><span
style="font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;color:#1f4e79">Resource
Transfer Policy</span><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'trebuchet
ms',sans-serif;color:#000099"></span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:15pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span
style="color:#1f4e79">This is to further
announce that the last call period for the
above proposals has ended, based on feedback
received from the community and the
editorial changes made by authors to address
community concerns, the consensus decision
from AFRINIC32 is still maintained.<br>
<br>
Co-Chairs will now send a report to the
Board recommending ratification of the two
above proposals in line with CPM 3.0.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Co-Chairs </span><span
style="color:#000099"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</p>
</div>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
This electronic message contains information which may
be privileged or confidential. The information is
intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information, even if partially,
including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached
files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a
criminal offense, so you must reply to the original
sender to inform about this communication and delete
it.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>