<div dir="auto"><div>Clearly, as responded by the Co-chairs let us stop attempting to railroad people in this community.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I have always understood the responsibilities of the Co-chairs to constitute striking balance where possible, on matters (policies) under discussions, and in the process take decision. However I don't see the reasons for the sustained attack on the persons of the Co-chairs for doing their job.</div><div dir="auto"> </div>The premise for the last call on the Transfer Policy was, if the authors made amendments first. They did the corrections and last call was made . So clearly there was no changes made during the last call. I don't see where the Co-chairs erred.</div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 20, 2020 3:16 PM, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p>Dear Fernando.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">See my comments inline</font></p><p>The thing is so absurd that now we have the justification based that "Editoral word" doesn't appear in the CPM, therefore in the interpretation of one of the chairs it can just be used to change the text anytime in any way at convenience. They call it "diverse definition". Perhaps this is yet another sign that there is not enough experience to conduct the business of CPM and so why so many mistakes have been made.<br></p><p><font color="#ff0000">I think it is your justification here that is absurd. Yes, it is true that it does not appear in the CPM or do you want to rewrite the CPM? and I think this is a typical example that you do not have enough leadership experience to understand that: been elected to a position of responsibility comes with the fact that one has to take decisions on behalf of the community. Be clear we never made a single mistake on this issue and all our actions are duly justified. </font></p><p>Been elected by the community is not a mandate to do things the way they feel like and to make up stuff that may not have the expected words in the CPM.<br>The idea of using Editorial changes as normal changes to try make the text achieve consensus is so out of touch that has been mentioned as unprecedented many times by several people here before. Everybody used with these forums in any RIR and other organizations know very well what editorial changes are for and definetelly is not to make a proposal try to reach consensus. Trying to force it to be something else will not work.<br></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Been elected by the community is enough mandate that we have the confidence of the community and when there is a disagreement to step in line with the CPM and not using <i>Fernando's</i> idea. Read the CPM clearly more especially section 3.6. </font></p><p>Legacy status issue doesn't even deserve discussion of its merit at this point because it was changed after the PPM. This is a major change in the proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT be considered just a a simple "Editorial change". This changes one of the fundamental points o the proposal, at last minute, given no time for discussion for the community, and worse: this was something that had NEVER been mentioned before in months and months of discussion.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Be clear, The changes in regards to the legacy status was done before going into the last call. Please read again the condition for the proposal to go into the last call. It was made very clear. Provided those changes are made then the proposal goes into the last call. Therefore it was before the last call. Please don't try and manipulate or create confusion here. If you have any objection to the proposal state them and stop this cheap blackmail. </font></p><p>There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their decision to be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.<font color="#888888"><br></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">It seems that you are now not just attempting to take over as the WG chair, but also the Appeal committe chair and member. </font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Good luck to you on that </font></p><font color="#888888"><p>Fernando</p><p>Co-Chair</p><p>PDWG</p></font></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>The thing is so absurd that now we have the justification based
that "Editoral word" doesn't appear in the CPM, therefore in the
interpretation of one of the chairs it can just be used to change
the text anytime in any way at convenience. They call it "diverse
definition". Perhaps this is yet another sign that there is not
enough experience to conduct the business of CPM and so why so
many mistakes have been made.</p>
<p>Been elected by the community is not a mandate to do things the
way they feel like and to make up stuff that may not have the
expected words in the CPM.<br>
The idea of using Editorial changes as normal changes to try make
the text achieve consensus is so out of touch that has been
mentioned as unprecedented many times by several people here
before. Everybody used with these forums in any RIR and other
organizations know very well what editorial changes are for and
definetelly is not to make a proposal try to reach consensus.
Trying to force it to be something else will not work.<br>
</p>
<p>Legacy status issue doesn't even deserve discussion of its merit
at this point because it was changed after the PPM. This is a
major change in the proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT
be considered just a a simple "Editorial change". This changes one
of the fundamental points o the proposal, at last minute, given no
time for discussion for the community, and worse: this was
something that had NEVER been mentioned before in months and
months of discussion.</p>
<p>There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their
decision to be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 20/10/2020 04:29, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">Hi AK,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">I’m not sure if you followed the thread in
ARIN.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">There it was clearly said by the CEO, John
Curran, that the actual version is not reciprocal.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><a href="https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.html" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/piperma<wbr>il/arin-ppml/2020-October/<wbr>068124.html</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">I don’t think it is a matter of just one
paragraph rewording. I already told this to the authors.
There are several conflicting paragraphs that need to be
reworded to make the complete text coherent.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">You say that the main opponents are the other
proposal authors, of course, it can’t be other way, because
everybody is convinced, they are right.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">However, you’re missing that despite that, I’ve
been trying to help Anthony and Taiwo (they can confirm),
even if I think that the way you’re handling this is not
correct according to the PDP (and this brough me the
additional problem of some other people very angry with me –
they don’t understand that I’m trying the best for the
community not for the authors a, b, or c).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US">So those are two separate issues (helping to
improve the proposal and doing it in a way that is according
to the PDP without any trace of “PDP illegality”).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regarding
the legacy there is a wrong working in the text. The
intent was to keep the same situation as we have now for
Intra-RIR, otherwise is not fair with existing transfers
and you need to add some more text to somehow compensate
them. So the text should be “5.7.4.3 Incoming transferred
legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy
resources”. This way you keep the
reciprocity/compatibility with all the regions but at the
same time, you keep the actual status in AFRINIC compared
with the existing Intra-RIR policy (incomming works for
both inter and intra – we did the same in LACNIC).<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">At this
point I’m more and more convinced that, unless a new
version is processed in this “last-call” extension, it
will not work, but on the other side, I’m convinced that
those are not just editorial changes and it means is not
the right way to handle this.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I shall
insist that the right thing to do at this point is to
declare no-consensus and ask the board to call in December
(sufficient time to prepare for it, and to have a new
version, or even a new policy) for a specific policy
meeting just for this proposal and concentrate the list in
discussing all the issues and a text that we all can
agree. Again is not a matter of authors it is a matter of
having the right thing for the community.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I could
even suggest that we all the authors of the 3 proposals
get together and find an agreement on this in a single
text good for all. At least we must try. You know that I
already suggested this before the Angola meeting.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 20/10/20
8:21, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE" <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear Sander
and Community,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">We would
take my time to respond to you as you hold our equivalent
seat in the RIPE region;<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">As per
the transfer policy, only about two or three issues
were raised during the last call.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">1. The
problem statement looks like a business problem
statement: <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Outcome:
The problem statement does not go into the CPM hence,
it does not matter<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">2.
Issues with Legacy holders: This is a tricky one and
there are no right or wrong answers about it.
Legacy holder remanning legacy holder, some feel is
not fair, Legacy holder not remanning legacy holders
some feel it would be better. On this issue, we have
gone back and forward on it because of the diverse
views of the community even as co-chairs we hold a
diverse view on this because both have advantages and
disadvantages. Personally, I have had to change my
view on this issue when I got a superior argument but
I have not allowed my personal view to have any effect
on the decision we take on this issue. The authors
indicated that they do not mind whichever way the
community goes on this issue. Originally on the
proposal, they indicated "legacy holders should not
remain legacy holders" they were asked to change this
and they also did. Therefore this issue of Legacy
holders can to be discussed separately more
importantly when there is no right or wrong answer on
it and the authors have been very flexible on this
issue. The decision on this issue has been addressed
in relation to the transfer policy but it can still be
amended if the community agrees now or later in
future. We just have to go with the majority for now
since no right or wrong answer from our view. We see
how this goes.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Finally,
on the issue of reciprocity, As far as we all know,
the policy has no reciprocity issue and if any is
pointed out then it can be fixed. We keep getting a
vague response regarding this issue and we cannot wait
forever on this. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> If anyone
knows of any other issue raised that has not been fixed
apart from emotional issues, please let us know. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">People kept
on shouting about what is "Editorial" changes and what is
not, <b>but the word "Editorial" is not even in the CPM</b>.
Therefore it is subjected to a diverse definition. In this
case, we as co-chairs elected by the community has to step
forward cos this is our role. To take decisions on
behalf of the community in situations like this.
Unfortunately, some people want to take over this role.
We have two co-chairs for a reason and am sure we both
cant be stupid. Some said we should follow the convention
on this issue, we said "<i>Ok no problem</i>",
Unfortunately, when we reversed our decision it was the
same person that criticised us as if previous chairs never
had reason to reverse their decisions.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">As far as we
can see the main opponents of this proposal are those that
have a conflicting proposal and it is impossible for all
three proposals to pass. I hope they get this, We all love
the community and should not think some do more than the
others. We as Co-Chairs have to make a tough but rational
decision as to which of the three is most acceptable to
the community. I have explained this several times and no
one as brought forward a superior argument rather they
keep chasing shadows, we took the decision based on the
proposal with the least number of objections to it. More
importantly, the authors have been very flexible in making
changes as suggested by the community. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">We have
consistently asked, Please tell us any issue that has not
been fixed with this proposal and rather than getting a
direct answer what we get is you broke the CPM. We ask
again point us to the CPM we broke they cant point us to
any.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">We
understand that as shepherds for the community, we have to
take tough decisions and we are ready to do that as long
as it is in the best interest of the community. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">My humble
suggestion to the community is that we now have time to
review this policy which is still on the last call. <b>Let
us spend our energy and time to review this in the
interest of the community and leave behind personal and
selfish issues and stop chasing shadows.</b><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hence, we
call on the authors of the proposal to start a new thread
with the proposed text and allow for a line by line
discussion so that we can put this behind us and address
other issues that require the attention of the community.
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Thanks <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Co-Chair
PDWG<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On Sun, Oct
18, 2020 at 9:33 PM Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">On
18-10-2020 12:08, <a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank">dc@darwincosta.com</a>
wrote:<br>
> Dear Abdul,<br>
> <br>
> Can you tell us on what basis you declared rough
consensus and<br>
> eventually consensus on this proposal only to
comeback and reverse the<br>
> decision.... <br>
> <br>
> Maybe I’m missing something and your clarification is
much appreciated.<br>
<br>
This would indeed be very helpful. Abdul: please provide
pointers to the<br>
messages on the mailing list where issues were raised and
to the<br>
messages those issues were addressed. After all: that is
the basis of<br>
consensus.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Sander<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:14.5pt">Website</span></a><span style="font-size:14.5pt">, <a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">PGPortal</a></span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">______________________________<wbr>_________________
RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
******************************<wbr>****************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">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>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<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/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Website</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">,</span><span style="font-size:1.3em"> </span><span style="font-size:1.3em"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">PGPortal</a></span></div><div><br></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<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/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div>
</div></div>