<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Frank,<div><br></div><div>you were the last one who posted and by "reply to all" you were inserted as well. It was not intentional, but I don't think it creates any confusion either. The main topic here is the Appeal, and what I wrote is related to that! </div><div><br></div><div>Lucilla </div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 14:15 Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</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">Hi all,<br>
<br>
For the record: below email from Lucilla is a *reply* to my email but<br>
not a response to any content of my email.<br>
<br>
Others might get confused.<br>
I'm sure that was not intended. But for the future it would help to<br>
reply to the emails that one is referring to (or start a new thread).<br>
Like maybe the appeal email in this case....<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
On 19/10/2020 05:15, lucilla fornaro wrote:<br>
> Dear Community,<br>
> <br>
> I am against this appeal for the following reasons:<br>
> <br>
> *1.1* Co-chairs followed the procedure fulfilling their administrative<br>
> function within the scope of the CPM. The co-chairs carried out their<br>
> administrative functions that include advancing suggestions.<br>
> <br>
> Consequently, the authors have the choice to adopt the suggestions and<br>
> make a change.<br>
> <br>
> The PDP allows and does not forbid the co-chairs from making suggestions<br>
> concerning major objections facilitating the overall discussion related<br>
> to the policy that can potentially reach consensus.<br>
> <br>
> *1.2 *“Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but<br>
> not necessarily accommodated”. That is exactly what happened: the policy<br>
> reached a rough consensus during the PPM (openly determined<br>
> by Co-chairs) and went to the last call for some editorial changes.<br>
> <br>
> *1.3* PDP needs to be considered as a guideline of practices and not<br>
> strict rules. It adopts COMMONLY accepted practices and provides the<br>
> FLEXIBILITY to adapt to a variety of circumstances that can occur during<br>
> the discussion of policies.<br>
> <br>
> Co-chairs did not make the rough consensus of the policy conditional,<br>
> they have just advanced some suggestions, that as we said fulfilling<br>
> their administrative function within the scope of Afrinic.<br>
> <br>
> *1.4* The PDP is managed and administered by the CPM that does not<br>
> forbid making changes.<br>
> <br>
> If we want to follow an objective reading and interpretation of PDP, we<br>
> will see that nowhere in the text it is stated that the policy is not<br>
> allowed to underdo editorial changes after the meeting. This means that<br>
> no violation occurred.<br>
> <br>
> *1.5* No major changes have been addressed in the last 2 drafts, in fact<br>
> there was no need for Impact Analysis from Afrinic. It is clear that the<br>
> community members have had exhaustive time to discuss the policy and<br>
> therefore there is no violation of CPM.<br>
> <br>
> *1.6* Co-Chairs job is to address major objections and suggest changes<br>
> (it is part of their administrative work). The co-chairs have never been<br>
> intrusive or coercive in their suggestions. They have never tried to<br>
> persuade the authors to make changes by using threats.<br>
> <br>
> *2.1* The Working Group Chairs MAY request AFRINIC to provide an<br>
> analysis of the changes made and of how these changes impact the policy<br>
> proposal. This proves that no major changes have been made for DRAFT03<br>
> and DRAFT04, therefore there is no need for an Impact Assessment from<br>
> AFRINIC .<br>
> <br>
> *2.2 *By removing the previous paragraph, the authors did not alter the<br>
> overall purpose of the proposal. For what concerns 5.7.3.1, 5.7.3.2,<br>
> 5.7.4.1, changes concern the styles used in the document and general<br>
> appearance and this is to be considered under the “editorial change”.<br>
> Simple clarifications that do not alter the substantive meaning of the<br>
> proposal material.<br>
> <br>
> *2.3* The proposal has been exhaustively discussed in the RPD mailing list.<br>
> <br>
> RIPE indicates AFRINIC the references and recommendations that it needs<br>
> to manage legacy space.<br>
> <br>
> The current transfer policy's purpose does not mainly focus on solving<br>
> this problem.<br>
> <br>
> This proposal was done with the intention of gaining reciprocity with<br>
> the principal contributor of IPv4s which is ARIN.<br>
> <br>
> ARIN has responded that the Resource Transfer Policy is not compatible<br>
> with their inter-RIR transfer policies because of the following<br>
> statement therein - “The source must be the current rights holder of the<br>
> IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR and shall be in<br>
> compliance with the policies of the receiving RIR.”<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> regards,<br>
> <br>
> Lucilla <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 01:02 Frank Habicht<br>
> <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>>> ha scritto:<br>
> <br>
> Hi Ekaterina,<br>
> <br>
> see inline below.<br>
> <br>
> 16/10/2020 20:33, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:<br>
> > Dear community,<br>
> ><br>
> > I believe this appeal is problematic for the following reasons.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.<br>
> ><br>
> > The compliance to the PDP and consensus determination<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.3 The policy discussion we had was complex and nuanced and therefore<br>
> > it was the co-chairs duty to reflect this nuance in their conclusions.<br>
> > There was no conditions imposed.<br>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>
> > The co-chairs simply stated that if<br>
> ^^^^<br>
> > some minor objections were to be addressed by the authors then the<br>
> > policy have achieved rough consensus.<br>
> <br>
> I think the part after the 'if' is a condition.<br>
> I think you're contradicting yourself.<br>
> <br>
> Maybe I have a problem with my English knowledge. If so, please help me<br>
> understand.<br>
> <br>
> Of course after that (what I call a contradiction), I could not continue<br>
> reading the email, because I can't be sure whether you base you<br>
> arguments on "no conditions" or on "If ...".<br>
> <br>
> I really hope co-chairs and all in this WG don't give too much weight to<br>
> arguments based on self-contradicting statements. The facts are there.<br>
> And of course I hope that was "professional and respectful" enough for<br>
> Lamiaa.<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> Frank<br>
> <br>
> > Nowhere in the PDP it states how<br>
> > exactly the chairs should determine consensus, therefore I believe<br>
> that<br>
> > in this case the chairs acted within their prerogative.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.4 The CPM does not explicitly state that only editorial changes are<br>
> > allowed. However, as you pointed out, it is understandable that such<br>
> > changes may be necessary. The fact that editorial changes are the only<br>
> > changes that have been made up to this point does not mean that these<br>
> > are the only changes allowed. The PDP is determined by the CPM and not<br>
> > by the past practices, and the CPM does not forbid any changes during<br>
> > the last call, be it editorial or not.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.5 The other proposals did not achieve consensus during the<br>
> meeting as<br>
> > there were still many unresolved major objections. The Resource<br>
> Transfer<br>
> > Policy only had minor issues that could be easily addressed by the<br>
> > authors. Therefore, there is no unfairness in regard to this issue.<br>
> > And again, nowhere in the CPM it states that non-editorial changes are<br>
> > not allowed to take place during the last call.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.6 These were not suggestions, but conclusions drawn by the<br>
> chairs from<br>
> > the discussion. They did summarize the discussion in an objective and<br>
> > non-intrusive manner. But you need to keep in mind that a nuanced<br>
> > discussion requires a nuanced summary.<br>
> ><br>
> > 1.7. Fairness is the basic principle that guides the PDP and that<br>
> > includes actions of the co-chairs.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2.<br>
> ><br>
> > Specific issues regarding the proposal being appealed<br>
> ><br>
> > 2.1 As the current situation holds – the staff assessment is not<br>
> > mandatory and therefore this is not a legitimate ground for the<br>
> appeal.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2.2 Again, nowhere in the CPM it states that significant changes<br>
> cannot<br>
> > be done during the last call. In this case particularly, all the<br>
> changes<br>
> > in the DRAFT-04 have been made to ensure that the Resource Transfer<br>
> > Policy is fully compatible with ARIN. There is no need for another<br>
> > discussion, as this change directly addresses all the issues raised in<br>
> > all the discussions that preceded the publication of this draft.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2.3 The issue of legacy resources is far too complex to be<br>
> realistically<br>
> > considered within the scope of the proposed policy. The goal of this<br>
> > policy is to make sure AFRINIC can receive resources from other<br>
> RIRs and<br>
> > the loss of legacy status is necessary to ensure reciprocity. However,<br>
> > if there is some perceived unfairness when it comes to the transfer of<br>
> > legacy resources, a separate policy ought to be introduced<br>
> following the<br>
> > Resource Transfer policy. There will be the right time and place<br>
> to have<br>
> > a discussion on legacy with all its nuances. As of now, the main<br>
> > priority for the region is to have a resource transfer policy that is<br>
> > reciprocal with other RIRs.<br>
> ><br>
> > As for your note that this proposal is not actually reciprocal with<br>
> > other RIRs – it is factually incorrect. The staff confirmed that the<br>
> > DRAFT-02 and DRAFT-03 are not compatible with ARIN, and this is<br>
> > precisely the reason DRAFT-04 was introduced. And before you say<br>
> that it<br>
> > was too hasty and it needed more discussion – it really doesn’t.<br>
> > DRAFT-04 just removed the section on the sending RIR being bound<br>
> by the<br>
> > policies of the receiving RIR that made the policy incompatible with<br>
> > ARIN as per staff assessment. Thus, with all the edits considered the<br>
> > DRAFT-04 of the Resource Transfer Policy should be functional and<br>
> fully<br>
> > compatible with other RIRs.<br>
> ><br>
> > Considering the above, I believe this appeal lacks the necessary<br>
> grounds<br>
> > to call for the non-declaration of concensus. <br>
> ><br>
> > Best, <br>
> ><br>
> > Ekaterina Kalugina <br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 19:17 Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 15:59 Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD,<br>
> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hello,<br>
> ><br>
> > As per appeal process, see below a copy of my email to appeal<br>
> > committee. <br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Greg<br>
> ><br>
> > Pleased to fully support this appeal against the cochairs<br>
> > declaration of rough consensus and consensus on a proposal that is<br>
> > had several unresolved valid objections. <br>
> ><br>
> > The cochairs erred bigly and its absurd to see the PDP process<br>
> > ignored at every step by those who must ensure that they follow it<br>
> > while acting fairly without being subjective like we have seen<br>
> recently.<br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers<br>
> > Noah<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> > <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>>><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> <br>
</blockquote></div>