<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Trying to make up that editorial changes can be made so freely
changing substantially the proposal, and worse, during the
last-call is so absurd that just by that there is enough reason to
demonstrate PDP was violated. Despite several other points
mentioned throughout the discussion.<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/10/2020 23:15, lucilla fornaro
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKJg62J7zX=TyQiZgzdT1PkO4BchE30POe7OSR7wq4feQkUy1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">Dear
Community,</font><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:-webkit-standard;font-size:medium"></span>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#000000">I am against this appeal for the following
reasons:<br>
</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><font face="arial, sans-serif"
color="#000000"><b>1.1</b> Co-chairs followed the
procedure fulfilling their administrative function within
the scope of the CPM. The co-chairs carried out their
administrative functions that include advancing
suggestions.</font></div>
<div title="Page 5" style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">Consequently,
the authors have the choice to adopt the suggestions and
make a change.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">The PDP
allows and does not forbid the co-chairs from making
suggestions concerning major objections facilitating the
overall discussion related to the policy that can
potentially reach consensus.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>1.2 </b>“Rough
consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but
not necessarily accommodated”. That is exactly what
happened: the policy reached a rough consensus during
the PPM (openly determined by Co-chairs) and went to the
last call for some editorial changes.</font></p>
<p><b style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">1.3</b><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">PDP needs to be
considered as a guideline of practices and not strict
rules. It adopts COMMONLY accepted practices and
provides the FLEXIBILITY to adapt to a variety of
circumstances that can occur during the discussion of
policies.</span><br>
</p>
<div title="Page 6">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">Co-chairs
did not make the rough consensus of the policy
conditional, they have just advanced some suggestions,
that as we said fulfilling their administrative
function within the scope of Afrinic.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>1.4</b> The
PDP is managed and administered by the CPM that does
not forbid making changes.</font></p>
<div title="Page 6">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">If we
want to follow an objective reading and
interpretation of PDP, we will see that nowhere in
the text it is stated that the policy is not allowed
to underdo editorial changes after the meeting. This
means that no violation occurred.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>1.5</b> No
major changes have been addressed in the last 2
drafts, in fact there was no need for Impact
Analysis from Afrinic. It is clear that the
community members have had exhaustive time to
discuss the policy and therefore there is no
violation of CPM.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>1.6</b> Co-Chairs
job is to address major objections and suggest
changes (it is part of their administrative work). </font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The co-chairs
have never been intrusive or coercive in their
suggestions. They have never tried to persuade the
authors to make changes by using threats.</span></p>
<div title="Page 7">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>2.1</b> The
Working Group Chairs MAY request AFRINIC to
provide an analysis of the changes made and of how
these changes impact the policy proposal. This
proves that no major changes have been made for
DRAFT03 and DRAFT04, therefore there is no need
for an Impact Assessment from AFRINIC .</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>2.2 </b>By
removing the previous paragraph, the authors did
not alter the overall purpose of the proposal. </font><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">For what
concerns 5.7.3.1, 5.7.3.2, 5.7.4.1, changes
concern the styles used in the document and
general appearance and this is to be considered
under the “editorial change”. Simple
clarifications that do not alter the substantive
meaning of the proposal material.</span></p>
<div title="Page 8">
<p><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><b>2.3</b> </span><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">The
proposal has been exhaustively discussed in the
RPD mailing list.</span><br>
</p>
<div title="Page 9">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">RIPE
indicates AFRINIC the references and
recommendations that it needs to manage legacy
space.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">The
current transfer policy's purpose does not
mainly focus on solving this problem.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">This
proposal was done with the intention of
gaining reciprocity with the principal
contributor of IPv4s which is ARIN.</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">ARIN
has responded that the Resource Transfer
Policy is not compatible with their inter-RIR
transfer policies because of the following
statement therein - “The source must be the
current rights holder of the IPv4 address
resources registered with any RIR and shall be
in compliance with the policies of the
receiving RIR.”</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">regards,</font></p>
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000">Lucilla </font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno lun 19 ott 2020 alle
ore 01:02 Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
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 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 meeting as<br>
> there were still many unresolved major objections. The
Resource 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 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 appeal.<br>
> <br>
> 2.2 Again, nowhere in the CPM it states that significant
changes cannot<br>
> be done during the last call. In this case particularly,
all the 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 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 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 following the<br>
> Resource Transfer policy. There will be the right time
and place 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 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 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 fully<br>
> compatible with other RIRs.<br>
> <br>
> Considering the above, I believe this appeal lacks the
necessary 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"
moz-do-not-send="true">noah@neo.co.tz</a> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020, 15:59 Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD,
<<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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 recently.<br>
> <br>
> Cheers<br>
> Noah<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="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>