<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">I read your email!<div>You answered back to Ekaterina, asking HER an explanation for what SHE wrote! Why should I talk on her behalf? How do I know what she meant by using those words?</div><div><br></div><div>Is this a constructive discussion? I don't think so.</div><div><br></div><div>Lucilla </div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 14:35 Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz">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,<br>
<br>
it seems you didn't read my email. the one you replied to.<br>
any comments about what I wrote?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
On 19/10/2020 08:29, lucilla fornaro wrote:<br>
> Dear Frank,<br>
> <br>
> you were the last one who posted and by "reply to all" you were inserted<br>
> as well. It was not intentional, but I don't think it creates<br>
> any confusion either. The main topic here is the Appeal, and what I<br>
> wrote is related to that! <br>
> <br>
> Lucilla <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle ore 14:15 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 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<br>
> suggestions<br>
> > concerning major objections facilitating the overall discussion<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> that<br>
> > no violation occurred.<br>
> ><br>
> > *1.5* No major changes have been addressed in the last 2 drafts,<br>
> in fact<br>
> > there was no need for Impact Analysis from Afrinic. It is clear<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> mailing list.<br>
> ><br>
> > RIPE indicates AFRINIC the references and recommendations that it<br>
> 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<br>
> 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>><br>
> <mailto:<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<br>
> therefore<br>
> > > it was the co-chairs duty to reflect this nuance in their<br>
> 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<br>
> 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,<br>
> please help me<br>
> > understand.<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course after that (what I call a contradiction), I could<br>
> 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<br>
> weight to<br>
> > arguments based on self-contradicting statements. The facts<br>
> are there.<br>
> > And of course I hope that was "professional and respectful"<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> changes are<br>
> > > allowed. However, as you pointed out, it is understandable<br>
> that such<br>
> > > changes may be necessary. The fact that editorial changes<br>
> are the only<br>
> > > changes that have been made up to this point does not mean<br>
> that these<br>
> > > are the only changes allowed. The PDP is determined by the<br>
> CPM and not<br>
> > > by the past practices, and the CPM does not forbid any<br>
> 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<br>
> by the<br>
> > > authors. Therefore, there is no unfairness in regard to this<br>
> issue.<br>
> > > And again, nowhere in the CPM it states that non-editorial<br>
> 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<br>
> objective and<br>
> > > non-intrusive manner. But you need to keep in mind that a<br>
> nuanced<br>
> > > discussion requires a nuanced summary.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > 1.7. Fairness is the basic principle that guides the PDP and<br>
> 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<br>
> Transfer<br>
> > > Policy is fully compatible with ARIN. There is no need for<br>
> another<br>
> > > discussion, as this change directly addresses all the issues<br>
> 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<br>
> 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<br>
> reciprocity. However,<br>
> > > if there is some perceived unfairness when it comes to the<br>
> 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<br>
> policy that is<br>
> > > reciprocal with other RIRs.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > As for your note that this proposal is not actually<br>
> reciprocal with<br>
> > > other RIRs – it is factually incorrect. The staff confirmed<br>
> 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<br>
> incompatible with<br>
> > > ARIN as per staff assessment. Thus, with all the edits<br>
> considered the<br>
> > > DRAFT-04 of the Resource Transfer Policy should be<br>
> 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>><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>>><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>><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>>>>><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>>><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>
> <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<br>
> 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<br>
> proposal that is<br>
> > > had several unresolved valid objections. <br>
> > ><br>
> > > The cochairs erred bigly and its absurd to see the PDP<br>
> process<br>
> > > ignored at every step by those who must ensure that they<br>
> follow it<br>
> > > while acting fairly without being subjective like we<br>
> 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>
> > <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>
> <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>
> > > <<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>
> <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>
> <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>
</blockquote></div>