<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>No, that doesn’t work, unless everybody agrees. That will work for an evident “grammar” problem. Then everybody will agree to have a policy proposal to amend a previous policy mistake.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>But if we go for a policy proposal that has no consensus, and we for example, change the “no more legacy status after a transfer” that today we have in the intra-RIR, then it will be impossible to agree in going-back later on. Just an example, not wanting to start a new discussion on that point.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In other cases, it may work. For example, we may reach consensus now on having only inter-RIR for IPv4, and then have another policy proposal for ASN, another one for IPv6, etc., because those are separate issues (no need to agree “again” on the IPv4 part).<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=ES-TRAD style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 22/10/20 17:07, "Gaby Giner" <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hello Ekaterina, Jaco, Frank, all,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>My main contention with this (and this has become increasingly clear) is that the CPM clearly needs some overhauling because of a lack of specificity. Despite that, however, I think the interpretation of the CPM must always be towards the community's benefit, with the Co-chairs interpreting it as close as possible. Strictly speaking, I did not see any CPM violations regarding the policy revisions (also because of the lack of clauses to be violated), but consideration should also be given due to the number of community members speaking out against the supposed "violations" of the chairs.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>It would be prudent to have a policy that answers the community's immediate need rather than delaying addressing the need because of technicalities. This is easier to amend than dealing with problems/deficiencies that arise when we don't have a stopgap (even the barest ones) measure in place. The conflict arises when a part of the community wants an almost perfect policy at the cost of time versus those who want to address it immediately and reform it once it is in place. I personally want the second option because a policy in place can be easier examined, and the faults in vivo are addressed with reforms rather than hypothetical guesses in the DPP stage. We also have to bear in mind that we can't fit EVERYTHING inside one policy simultaneously. At the end of the day, we want a policy that answers the need of the community the best, but not a policy that addresses the need ex post facto, especially if we can prevent losses beforehand.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt'>Thanks, Gaby<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:01 AM Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hi,<br><br>inline...<br><br>On 21/10/2020 18:25, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:<br>> Dear Alain,<br>> <br>> First of all, you say that the changes made by the authors during the<br>> last call are not editorial changes and therefore cannot be accepted as<br>> per the PDP. Yet nowhere in the CPM this is stated explicitly.<br>> <br>> In this appeal you also stated that the need for some policy arose as<br>> early as 2015. The solution to this problem has been dragged out for<br>> over 5 years and now that we have a functional proposal you are coming<br> ^^^^^^^^^^ functional in *your*<br> opinion<br><br>> up with excuses that are insignificant in the context of the need of<br>> this policy.<br> ^^^^ I think you wanted to say "a policy" because the previous<br>sentence talks about "some policy".<br><br><br>> The changes done to the Resource Transfer Policy technically do not<br>> violate the CPM, as the text does not state that only editorial changes<br>> are allowed.<br>... but in the the spirit and understanding of many here. nevermind.<br>1. Technically the text does not any changes are allowed (others have<br> shown this).<br>2. more importantly: Technically, this last call period is here for a<br>purpose (do you agree?), and that is to give opportunity to mailing list<br>members to voice objection to the conclusions at the meeting.<br>I hope you can see that this is exactly what is happening.<br>You should now argue that co-chairs should ignore all discussions during<br>last-call.<br><br>> In addition, nowhere in the CPM it states that the chairs<br>> are not allowed to propose changes that reflect the concerns of the<br>> community.<br><br>do you mean "whole community" - in general consensus?<br><br>[snip]> To be fair, I do understand some of the concerns you raised in your<br>> appeal, but I believe that passing this policy now would be much more<br>> valuable than dragging this process for many more years. The progress<br>> made on this policy is very important and I think it is high time we<br>> thought about the benefit to the community above the subjective<br>> interpretations of the PDP.<br><br>Is this a good time to ask what the benefit to the community is (or will<br>be)?<br>I sure believe that some PDWG members will benefit, because they profit<br>from IP transfers.<br>But I prefer these not to be counted as "community benefits".<br><br>Thanks,<br>Frank<br><br><br>> <br>> Best,<br>> <br>> Ekaterina <br>> <br>> <br>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 9:45 PM Vivien ASSANGBE WOTTO<br>> <<a href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj" target="_blank">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj" target="_blank">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a>>> wrote:<br>> <br>> <br>> Dear Committee Members,<br>> Me, Vivien A. W , I took part in the discussion.<br>> I completely support this appeal<br>> <br>> ---<br>> Ensemble / together ……<br>> <br>> Cordialement,<br>> <br>> Best regards,<br>> <br>> _____________________________________________<br>> <br>> G. Vivien ASSANGBE WOTTO<br>> <br>> <br>> BÉNIN TELECOMS INFRASTRUCTURES SA<br>> <br>> DPM / SGI / Centre IP<br>> <br>> Tel: 00229 90 09 68 29 - 00229 21 14 98 58<br>> <br>> email: <a href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj" target="_blank">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj" target="_blank">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a>><br>> <br>> <a href="mailto:vivien@intnet.bj" target="_blank">vivien@intnet.bj</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:vivien@intnet.bj" target="_blank">vivien@intnet.bj</a>><br>> <br>> <br>> _____________________________________________<br>> <br>> Le 20-10-2020 17:52, ALAIN AINA a écrit :<br>> > Dear PDWG Appeal Committee Members,<br>> ><br>> > Please find attached, an appeal against the consensus determination on<br>> > proposal AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT04 (Resource Transfer Policy) for your<br>> > consideration.<br>> ><br>> > Regards,<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > —Adeola A. P. Aina<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> RPD mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> RPD mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>> <br><br>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<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>
</body></html>