<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>The change about the legacy stuff DOES change the intent of the
policy when it changes the sense of one of main points: Legacy
resources before the change lost they legacy status and after the
change does not anymore.<br>
</p>
<p>Forget about the merit and if this is good or bad. It DOES NOT
matter at this stage ! This is something to be discussed during
the discussion phase and since there was never time for this after
the PPM as it was already in last-call.<br>
The only point that matters here is that a substancial change in
the text that changes the sense of the proposal was done after it
could be done and can not in any possible way be considered a
"editorial change" as it didn't just replace one word for another
with the same meaning or typos.</p>
<p>It also DOES NOT matter how valuable this proposal it to the
region and if it will take another 3, 6 or 12 months for a new
proposal to achieve consensus. It must be done according to the
PDP.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/10/2020 11:31, Ekaterina Kalugina
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHS7WUDqzp3sBbUa_P9GQ0cHedA_+MEAhVivRs9wQ+m+fc4Xxw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Dear all,
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div dir="auto">I agree with Mike. The edits done do not
change the essence of the policy, but rather make sure it is
functional and compatible with other RIRs.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"> At this point, all the objections seem to
concern the process and not the policy itself. And these
objections are not even properly justified. Even if in other
RIRs it may be different, the changes done do not violate
the AFRINIC CPM. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">We all agree that this policy is necessary.
And now we finally have a proposal that is fully functional.
I see no viable reason to undermine all the progress
achieved in the development of this policy. Passing this
policy now would be much more valuable to the region than
dragging it on who knows how many months. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Let us stop sabotaging this important
development by insisting on that it violates some subjective
interpretations of the PDP. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ekaterina </div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 16:12
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The
problem lies in the details:<br>
<br>
All the other RIRs have explicit PDP text to allow
editorial changes in the last-call. AFRINIC doesn't have
it (that's why I explicitly included that in my PDP update
proposal).<br>
<br>
I can't agree with anyone that think that those changes
(editorial) should be allowed while the PDP doesn't
explicitly mention it.<br>
<br>
There is a clear exception: a typo or grammar mistake. In
this case it is clear that should be corrected, but look
how we did in AFRINIC *always*: *in the meeting itself
during the proposal presentation* not afterwards, not in
the last-call. So, the consensus is determined *with those
changes done*.<br>
<br>
Let's look this from a perspective of a country parliament
doing laws. How it works?<br>
1) The government or parties make a law proposal.<br>
2) It is discussed, there may be different versions, some
of them may be voted at some point, they may fail, new
versions, etc., then the last one (our last-call) goes for
voting to the plenary.<br>
3) Once it is accepted, then *that text* and *only that
text* goes to the official journal.<br>
<br>
If there is even a misspelling, it should be published as
it was presented before the voting. CHANGES!<br>
<br>
Here we don't have voting, we have consensus, but the rest
of the flow is the same.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Jordi<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
El 21/10/20 16:02, "Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD" <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
escribió:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/20 2:44 PM, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
> Hi Sami,<br>
> <br>
> Thanks for your input. I agree with what you have
written, but the devil is in the details.<br>
> Change to some degree is allowed in last call, in
my opinion.<br>
<br>
Change in grammar, wording... sure ! In meaning, no.<br>
<br>
> If the change is immaterial, as this one is, I
think the correct move is to advance the policy.<br>
> I say this having witnessed the difficulties in
moving policies to implementation status at AFRINIC.<br>
> In the light of these difficulties it is
unreasonable for me to give up the hard-won progress in
exchange for what to me is a quibble about something
unimportant that can be changed later if necessary.<br>
> <br>
> We simply disagree on a few things. The
importance of getting a policy in place, the materiality
of the legacy wordage, and the propriety of the process
regarding consensus and changes in last call. Maybe I
think the policy is more important than you do, or you
think adhering to proper policy development is more
important than I do. There are valid arguments on both
sides.<br>
> <br>
> I think we have both made our points clear.<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> Mike<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen <<a
href="mailto:sami@marwan.ma" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">sami@marwan.ma</a>><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:10 AM<br>
> To: Mike Burns <<a
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">mike@iptrading.com</a>><br>
> Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on
Resource Transfer Policy<br>
> <br>
> Hi Mike,<br>
> <br>
> The policy has undergone a change. So it must be
reviewed. For that, it needs to go back to the list.
Whether the part that's been changed is relevant to some
or not, is irrelevant. If a part of a policy is
irrelevant, it must be removed. But that's also a change.
Either way it goes back to the list.<br>
> <br>
> Reviewing policies in last call is a bad idea. It
sets a bad precedent where policies are modified in the
last minute without proper discussion.<br>
> <br>
> Last call is for a last round of humming, let's
not make something else.<br>
> <br>
> HTH<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> Sami<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On Oct 20, 2020, at 18:49, Mike Burns <<a
href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">mike@iptrading.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Sami,<br>
>><br>
>> Points 2, 3, 4, and 10 of the post I replied
to, which undergird the problem, all relate to the legacy
issue.<br>
>> It is the bone of contention, take it away
and the constellation of problems related to moderators,
last-call, appeals, etc. will go away, in my opinion.<br>
>> The reciprocity issue has no relation to
legacy and is editorial: "recipient must be an RIR
member....".<br>
>><br>
>> I don't think I am diverging, instead I am
simply saying the legacy issue and the editorial change
are insignificant in the context of the need for this
policy.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Mike<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:06 PM<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on
Resource Transfer Policy<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 10/20/20 5:10 PM, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
>>> Hello,<br>
>>><br>
>>> The legacy issue is immaterial.<br>
>><br>
>> You're diverging. That's not what's being
discussed.<br>
>><br>
>>> The "missing dues" that wouldn't be paid
by retention of legacy status have never been enumerated.<br>
>>> ARIN has a larger legacy community than
AFRINIC, if that were a burden I would expect ARIN's fees
and dues to be higher than AFRINIC.<br>
>>> However the opposite is true, AFRINIC
fees are generally higher than ARIN's.<br>
>>><br>
>>> The number of inter-regional transfers
that have occurred with retention of legacy status is
tiny, and none have occurred at AFRINIC.<br>
>>> Nobody in the transfer market cares about
retention of legacy status (or not).<br>
>>><br>
>>> So in my opinion, derailing this proposal
over this insignificant matter at this late date is
unwarranted.<br>
>>> Legacy status is something you can debate
about later, and change the policy then.<br>
>>> It's not something to hold back this
important proposal over.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>> Mike<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:50 AM<br>
>>> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus
on Resource Transfer Policy<br>
>>><br>
>>> +1<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 10/20/20 4:36 PM, Jaco Kroon
wrote:<br>
>>>> Hi Abdul,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> With all due respect to both yourself
and Fernando. I personally<br>
>>>> think you're both right, and both
wrong.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Please just stop and read Abdul.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 1. Yes, it's crazy/absurd that it's
come to this.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 2. No, the change was made at/after
the PPM and straight into last<br>
>>>> call. So whether or not this was
made prior to last call or during<br>
>>>> last call is actually irrelevant.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 3. The first opportunity many of us
had to see this legacy change<br>
>>>> was during last call.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 4. Many of us acknowledge the need
for change to the legacy no<br>
>>>> longer clause but we don't agree with
the change as has been taken<br>
>>>> to last call. Many alternatives that
would also achieve reciprocity<br>
>>>> has been proposed.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 5. I have actually re-read CPM
section 3 last night, and have<br>
>>>> already highlighted that changes are
neither permitted nor<br>
>>>> prevented, but I believe some common
sense here should prevail in<br>
>>>> that from the CPM it's plain that the
intention is for final review,<br>
>>>> and that any concerns raised that's
valid should have the proposal go back to discussion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 6. I disagree that your actions are
duly justified, but I can see<br>
>>>> 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<br>
>>>> a policy proposal in last call, and
this has been the case from the<br>
>>>> moment it went to last call, so when
you took it to ratification,<br>
>>>> there is absolutely no way this could
have been in line with the CPM<br>
>>>> 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<br>
>>>> we're asking you to have the sense to
realise that there isn't<br>
>>>> consensus and bring the proposal
(along with the other inter-RIR<br>
>>>> transfer<br>
>>>> policies) back to discussion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 9. I'm not sure what the conditions
was, but either the conditions<br>
>>>> were wrong, or the implementation
thereof was wrong. Specifically:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 10. Retaining legacy status is all
good and well on outbound<br>
>>>> transfers (Afrinic can't prescribe to
other RIRs), but we don't want<br>
>>>> to have legacy status retained on
intra-RIR or inbound transfers.<br>
>>>> Jordi pointed out that if any
intra-RIR transfers of legacy space<br>
>>>> has happened the change would be
detrimental to those that have<br>
>>>> transferred, and the change is thus a
complete reversal of previous<br>
>>>> policy. I for one, speaking on
behalf of my employer, have no<br>
>>>> interest in paying fees when legacy
holders get most of the same services for free.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Yes, I do wish we could finalize
this, I don't think anybody is<br>
>>>> disputing that we urgently need
this. But in spite of how much it's<br>
>>>> going to hurt to need this and not
have it, having it in a<br>
>>>> non-working state is even worse.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Kind Regards,<br>
>>>> Jaco<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 2020/10/20 16:11, ABDULKARIM
OLOYEDE wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Dear Fernando.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> See my comments inline<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The thing is so absurd that now
we have the justification based<br>
>>>>> that "Editoral word" doesn't
appear in the CPM, therefore in the<br>
>>>>> interpretation of one of the
chairs it can just be used to change<br>
>>>>> the text anytime in any way at
convenience. They call it "diverse<br>
>>>>> definition". Perhaps this is yet
another sign that there is not<br>
>>>>> enough experience to conduct the
business of CPM and so why so many<br>
>>>>> mistakes have been made.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I think it is your justification
here that is absurd. Yes, it is<br>
>>>>> true that it does not appear in
the CPM or do you want to rewrite the CPM?<br>
>>>>> and I think this is a typical
example that you do not have enough<br>
>>>>> leadership experience to
understand that: been elected to a<br>
>>>>> position of responsibility comes
with the fact that one has to take<br>
>>>>> decisions on behalf of the
community. Be clear we never made a<br>
>>>>> single mistake on this issue and
all our actions are duly justified.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Been elected by the community is
not a mandate to do things the way<br>
>>>>> they feel like and to make up
stuff that may not have the expected<br>
>>>>> words in the CPM.<br>
>>>>> The idea of using Editorial
changes as normal changes to try make<br>
>>>>> the text achieve consensus is so
out of touch that has been<br>
>>>>> mentioned as unprecedented many
times by several people here before.<br>
>>>>> Everybody used with these forums
in any RIR and other organizations<br>
>>>>> know very well what editorial
changes are for and definetelly is<br>
>>>>> not to make a proposal try to
reach consensus. Trying to force it<br>
>>>>> to be something else will not
work.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Been elected by the community is
enough mandate that we have the<br>
>>>>> confidence of the community and
when there is a disagreement to<br>
>>>>> step in line with the CPM and not
using /Fernando's/ idea. Read the<br>
>>>>> CPM clearly more especially
section 3.6.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Legacy status issue doesn't even
deserve discussion of its merit at<br>
>>>>> this point because it was changed
after the PPM. This is a major<br>
>>>>> change in the proposal, been done
after the PPM and can NOT be<br>
>>>>> considered just a a simple
"Editorial change". This changes one of<br>
>>>>> the fundamental points o the
proposal, at last minute, given no<br>
>>>>> time for discussion for the
community, and worse: this was<br>
>>>>> something that had NEVER been
mentioned before in months and months of discussion.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Be clear, The changes in regards
to the legacy status was done<br>
>>>>> before going into the last call.
Please read again the condition<br>
>>>>> for the proposal to go into the
last call. It was made very clear.<br>
>>>>> Provided those changes are made
then the proposal goes into the last call.<br>
>>>>> Therefore it was before the last
call. Please don't try and<br>
>>>>> manipulate or create confusion
here. If you have any objection to<br>
>>>>> the proposal state them and stop
this cheap blackmail.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> There are more than enough
violations of the PDP for their decision<br>
>>>>> to be ruled out by the Appeal
Committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> It seems that you are now not
just attempting to take over as the<br>
>>>>> WG chair, but also the Appeal
committe chair and member.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Good luck to you on that<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Fernando<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Co-Chair<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> PDWG<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM
Fernando Frediani<br>
>>>>> <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The thing is so absurd that
now we have the justification based<br>
>>>>> that "Editoral word" doesn't
appear in the CPM, therefore in the<br>
>>>>> interpretation of one of the
chairs it can just be used to change<br>
>>>>> the text anytime in any way
at convenience. They call it "diverse<br>
>>>>> definition". Perhaps this is
yet another sign that there is not<br>
>>>>> enough experience to conduct
the business of CPM and so why so<br>
>>>>> many mistakes have been
made.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Been elected by the
community is not a mandate to do things the<br>
>>>>> way they feel like and to
make up stuff that may not have the<br>
>>>>> expected words in the CPM.<br>
>>>>> The idea of using Editorial
changes as normal changes to try make<br>
>>>>> the text achieve consensus
is so out of touch that has been<br>
>>>>> mentioned as unprecedented
many times by several people here<br>
>>>>> before. Everybody used with
these forums in any RIR and other<br>
>>>>> organizations know very well
what editorial changes are for and<br>
>>>>> definetelly is not to make a
proposal try to reach consensus.<br>
>>>>> Trying to force it to be
something else will not work.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Legacy status issue doesn't
even deserve discussion of its merit<br>
>>>>> at this point because it was
changed after the PPM. This is a<br>
>>>>> major change in the
proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT<br>
>>>>> be considered just a a
simple "Editorial change". This changes one<br>
>>>>> of the fundamental points o
the proposal, at last minute, given no<br>
>>>>> time for discussion for the
community, and worse: this was<br>
>>>>> something that had NEVER
been mentioned before in months and<br>
>>>>> months of discussion.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> There are more than enough
violations of the PDP for their<br>
>>>>> decision to be ruled out by
the Appeal Committee.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Fernando<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 20/10/2020 04:29, JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Hi AK,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I’m not sure if you
followed the thread in ARIN.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> There it was clearly
said by the CEO, John Curran, that the<br>
>>>>>> actual version is not
reciprocal.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.htm"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.htm</a><br>
>>>>>> l<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.ht"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.ht</a><br>
>>>>>> m<br>
>>>>>> l<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I don’t think it is a
matter of just one paragraph rewording. I<br>
>>>>>> already told this to the
authors. There are several conflicting<br>
>>>>>> paragraphs that need to
be reworded to make the complete text<br>
>>>>>> coherent.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> You say that the main
opponents are the other proposal authors,<br>
>>>>>> of course, it can’t be
other way, because everybody is convinced,<br>
>>>>>> they are right.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> However, you’re missing
that despite that, I’ve been trying to<br>
>>>>>> help Anthony and Taiwo
(they can confirm), even if I think that<br>
>>>>>> the way you’re handling
this is not correct according to the PDP<br>
>>>>>> (and this brough me the
additional problem of some other people<br>
>>>>>> very angry with me –
they don’t understand that I’m trying the<br>
>>>>>> best for the community
not for the authors a, b, or c).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> So those are two
separate issues (helping to improve the proposal<br>
>>>>>> and doing it in a way
that is according to the PDP without any<br>
>>>>>> trace of “PDP
illegality”).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Regarding the legacy
there is a wrong working in the text. The<br>
>>>>>> intent was to keep the
same situation as we have now for<br>
>>>>>> Intra-RIR, otherwise is
not fair with existing transfers and you<br>
>>>>>> need to add some more
text to somehow compensate them. So the<br>
>>>>>> text should be “5.7.4.3
Incoming transferred legacy resources<br>
>>>>>> will no longer be
regarded as legacy resources”. This way you<br>
>>>>>> keep the
reciprocity/compatibility with all the regions but at<br>
>>>>>> the same time, you keep
the actual status in AFRINIC compared<br>
>>>>>> with the existing
Intra-RIR policy (incomming works for both<br>
>>>>>> inter and intra – we did
the same in LACNIC).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> At this point I’m more
and more convinced that, unless a new<br>
>>>>>> version is processed in
this “last-call” extension, it will not<br>
>>>>>> work, but on the other
side, I’m convinced that those are not<br>
>>>>>> just editorial changes
and it means is not the right way to<br>
>>>>>> handle this.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I shall insist that the
right thing to do at this point is to<br>
>>>>>> declare no-consensus and
ask the board to call in December<br>
>>>>>> (sufficient time to
prepare for it, and to have a new version, or<br>
>>>>>> even a new policy) for a
specific policy meeting just for this<br>
>>>>>> proposal and concentrate
the list in discussing all the issues<br>
>>>>>> and a text that we all
can agree. Again is not a matter of<br>
>>>>>> authors it is a matter
of having the right thing for the community.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I could even suggest
that we all the authors of the 3 proposals<br>
>>>>>> get together and find an
agreement on this in a single text good<br>
>>>>>> for all. At least we
must try. You know that I already suggested<br>
>>>>>> this before the Angola
meeting.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Regards,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Jordi<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> @jordipalet<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> El 20/10/20 8:21,
"ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE"<br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>><br>
>>>>>> escribió:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Dear Sander and
Community,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We would take my time to
respond to you as you hold our<br>
>>>>>> equivalent seat in the
RIPE region;<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> As per the transfer
policy, only about two or three issues were<br>
>>>>>> raised during the last
call.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 1. The problem statement
looks like a business problem statement:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Outcome: The problem
statement does not go into the CPM hence, it<br>
>>>>>> does not matter<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 2. Issues with Legacy
holders: This is a tricky one and there are<br>
>>>>>> no right or wrong
answers about it. Legacy holder remanning<br>
>>>>>> legacy holder, some
feel is not fair, Legacy holder not<br>
>>>>>> remanning legacy holders
some feel it would be better. On this<br>
>>>>>> issue, we have gone back
and forward on it because of the diverse<br>
>>>>>> views of the community
even as co-chairs we hold a diverse view<br>
>>>>>> on this because both
have advantages and disadvantages.<br>
>>>>>> Personally, I have had
to change my view on this issue when I got<br>
>>>>>> a superior argument but
I have not allowed my personal view to<br>
>>>>>> have any effect on the
decision we take on this issue. The<br>
>>>>>> authors indicated that
they do not mind whichever way the<br>
>>>>>> community goes on this
issue. Originally on the proposal, they<br>
>>>>>> indicated "legacy
holders should not remain legacy holders" they<br>
>>>>>> were asked to change
this and they also did. Therefore this issue<br>
>>>>>> of Legacy holders can to
be discussed separately more importantly<br>
>>>>>> when there is no right
or wrong answer on it and the authors have<br>
>>>>>> been very flexible on
this issue. The decision on this issue has<br>
>>>>>> been addressed in
relation to the transfer policy but it can<br>
>>>>>> still be amended if the
community agrees now or later in future.<br>
>>>>>> We just have to go with
the majority for now since no right or<br>
>>>>>> wrong answer from our
view. We see how this goes.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Finally, on the issue of
reciprocity, As far as we all know, the<br>
>>>>>> policy has no
reciprocity issue and if any is pointed out then it<br>
>>>>>> can be fixed. We keep
getting a vague response regarding this<br>
>>>>>> issue and we cannot wait
forever on this.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> If anyone knows of any
other issue raised that has not been<br>
>>>>>> fixed apart from
emotional issues, please let us know.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> People kept on shouting
about what is "Editorial" changes and<br>
>>>>>> what is not, *but the
word "Editorial" is not even in the CPM*.<br>
>>>>>> Therefore it is
subjected to a diverse definition. In this case,<br>
>>>>>> we as co-chairs elected
by the community has to step forward cos<br>
>>>>>> this is our role. To
take decisions on behalf of the community in<br>
>>>>>> situations like this.
Unfortunately, some people want to take<br>
>>>>>> over this role. We
have two co-chairs for a reason and am sure<br>
>>>>>> we both cant be stupid.
Some said we should follow the convention<br>
>>>>>> on this issue, we said
"/Ok no problem/", Unfortunately, when we<br>
>>>>>> reversed our decision it
was the same person that criticised us<br>
>>>>>> as if previous chairs
never had reason to reverse their decisions.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> As far as we can see the
main opponents of this proposal are<br>
>>>>>> those that have a
conflicting proposal and it is impossible for<br>
>>>>>> all three proposals to
pass. I hope they get this, We all love<br>
>>>>>> the community and should
not think some do more than the others.<br>
>>>>>> We as Co-Chairs have to
make a tough but rational decision as to<br>
>>>>>> which of the three is
most acceptable to the community. I have<br>
>>>>>> explained this several
times and no one as brought forward a<br>
>>>>>> superior argument rather
they keep chasing shadows, we took the<br>
>>>>>> decision based on the
proposal with the least number of<br>
>>>>>> objections to it. More
importantly, the authors have been very<br>
>>>>>> flexible in making
changes as suggested by the community.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We have consistently
asked, Please tell us any issue that has not<br>
>>>>>> been fixed with this
proposal and rather than getting a direct<br>
>>>>>> answer what we get is
you broke the CPM. We ask again point us to<br>
>>>>>> the CPM we broke they
cant point us to any.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> We understand that as
shepherds for the community, we have to<br>
>>>>>> take tough decisions and
we are ready to do that as long as it is<br>
>>>>>> in the best interest of
the community.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> My humble suggestion to
the community is that we now have time to<br>
>>>>>> review this policy which
is still on the last call. *Let us spend<br>
>>>>>> our energy and time to
review this in the interest of the<br>
>>>>>> community and leave
behind personal and selfish issues and stop<br>
>>>>>> chasing shadows.*<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Hence, we call on the
authors of the proposal to start a new<br>
>>>>>> thread with the proposed
text and allow for a line by line<br>
>>>>>> discussion so that we
can put this behind us and address other<br>
>>>>>> issues that require the
attention of the community.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Thanks<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Co-Chair PDWG<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at
9:33 PM Sander Steffann<br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">sander@steffann.nl</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">sander@steffann.nl</a>>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 18-10-2020 12:08,
<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">dc@darwincosta.com</a><br>
>>>>>> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" 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<br>
>>>>>> reverse the<br>
>>>>>>> decision....<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Maybe I’m missing
something and your clarification is much<br>
>>>>>> appreciated.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> This would indeed be
very helpful. Abdul: please provide<br>
>>>>>> 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<br>
>>>>>> basis of<br>
>>>>>> consensus.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>>>> Sander<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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 noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Website <<a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng</a>>,
Weekly Bulletin<br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin</a>>
UGPortal<br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>>
PGPortal<br>
>>>>>> <<a
href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________ RPD
mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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 noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
**********************************************<br>
>>>>>> IPv4 is over<br>
>>>>>> Are you ready for the
new Internet ?<br>
>>>>>> <a
href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.theipv6company.com</a>
<<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" 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<br>
>>>>>> privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for<br>
>>>>>> the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further<br>
>>>>>> non-explicilty
authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or<br>
>>>>>> use of the contents of
this information, even if partially,<br>
>>>>>> including attached
files, is strictly prohibited and will be<br>
>>>>>> considered a criminal
offense. If you are not the intended<br>
>>>>>> recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or<br>
>>>>>> use of the contents of
this information, even if partially,<br>
>>>>>> including attached
files, is strictly prohibited, will be<br>
>>>>>> considered a criminal
offense, so you must reply to the original<br>
>>>>>> sender to inform about
this communication and delete it.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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 noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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 noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Website <<a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng</a>>,Weekly
Bulletin<br>
>>>>> <<a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin</a>>
UGPortal<br>
>>>>> <<a
href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>>
PGPortal<br>
>>>>> <<a
href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer 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" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>><br>
> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" 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>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</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>