<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Abdul,</p>
<p>With all due respect to both yourself and Fernando. I personally
think you're both right, and both wrong.<br>
</p>
<p>Please just stop and read Abdul.<br>
</p>
<p>1. Yes, it's crazy/absurd that it's come to this.</p>
<p>2. No, the change was made at/after the PPM and straight into
last call. So whether or not this was made prior to last call or
during last call is actually irrelevant.<br>
</p>
<p>3. The first opportunity many of us had to see this legacy
change was during last call.</p>
<p>4. Many of us acknowledge the need for change to the legacy no
longer clause but we don't agree with the change as has been taken
to last call. Many alternatives that would also achieve
reciprocity has been proposed.</p>
<p>5. I have actually re-read CPM section 3 last night, and have
already highlighted that changes are neither permitted nor
prevented, but I believe some common sense here should prevail in
that from the CPM it's plain that the intention is for final
review, and that any concerns raised that's valid should have the
proposal go back to discussion.</p>
<p>6. I disagree that your actions are duly justified, but I can
see from your perspective why you believe this to be the case.<br>
<br>
7. This is however irrelevant as there is plainly not consensus
on a policy proposal in last call, and this has been the case from
the moment it went to last call, so when you took it to
ratification, there is absolutely no way this could have been in
line with the CPM process, and if it was, then I would propose
that we revisit that and fix that too.<br>
<br>
8. You had the sense to revert the ratification decision. Now
we're asking you to have the sense to realise that there isn't
consensus and bring the proposal (along with the other inter-RIR
transfer policies) back to discussion.</p>
<p>9. I'm not sure what the conditions was, but either the
conditions were wrong, or the implementation thereof was wrong.
Specifically:<br>
<br>
10. Retaining legacy status is all good and well on outbound
transfers (Afrinic can't prescribe to other RIRs), but we don't
want to have legacy status retained on intra-RIR or inbound
transfers. Jordi pointed out that if any intra-RIR transfers of
legacy space has happened the change would be detrimental to those
that have transferred, and the change is thus a complete reversal
of previous policy. I for one, speaking on behalf of my employer,
have no interest in paying fees when legacy holders get most of
the same services for free.<br>
</p>
<p>Yes, I do wish we could finalize this, I don't think anybody is
disputing that we urgently need this. But in spite of how much
it's going to hurt to need this and not have it, having it in a
non-working state is even worse.<br>
</p>
<p>Kind Regards,<br>
Jaco<br>
</p>
On 2020/10/20 16:11, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAES4e9kiV4Ea7D-auM8FTf+ajRv6VCOpB9xH8M7my25QZ544OA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US">I’m not sure if you followed the thread
in ARIN.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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”).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"
lang="EN-US"> </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" moz-do-not-send="true">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>
escribió:</p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Dear Sander
and Community,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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;</p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">1.
The problem statement looks like a business
problem statement: </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</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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. </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. </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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">
</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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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></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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Thanks </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">Co-Chair
PDWG</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </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"
moz-do-not-send="true">sander@steffann.nl</a>>
wrote:</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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
_______________________________________________<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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">Weekly
Bulletin</a> <a
href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">UGPortal</a>
<a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">PGPortal</a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:35.4pt">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" 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"
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>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
<div><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" style="font-size:1.3em"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a
href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">UGPortal</a> <a
href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">PGPortal</a></span></div>
<div><br>
</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>