<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Hi Ekaterina,<br>
    </p>
    <p>On 2020/10/21 16:31, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:</p>
    <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>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>I agree about it making it compatible.</p>
    <p>I strongly disagree about not changing the essence of the
      policy.  There was no changes about legacy in the version prior to
      last call (yes, we know this was changed just prior to last call,
      not commenting towards that).</p>
    <p>This change in fact *reverses* the essence of the original
      clause.</p>
    <p>If I recall there were other reciprocity issues as well, but I'll
      need to go dig out the archives what exactly those were.</p>
    <p>Kind Regards,<br>
      Jaco<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHS7WUDqzp3sBbUa_P9GQ0cHedA_+MEAhVivRs9wQ+m+fc4Xxw@mail.gmail.com">
      <div dir="auto">
        <div dir="auto"><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>