<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Gaby,</p>
On 2020/10/22 17:00, Gaby Giner wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANuMXapRzDhVpYZ25xCCV3cFu0f-t6wTFCQx0MOj23LC3nLfUQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hello Ekaterina, Jaco, Frank, all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Just to be clear: I'm not saying there were any violations, nor
am I saying there weren't. On this matter I've not done
sufficient research. I am saying that I disagree with the
decision around consensus. And I am saying that the intention of
section 3 of the CPM according to my reading is that changes
should not be done during the final call. But I also stated, as
per you, that there are no clauses specifically allowing, nor
prohibiting changes.<br>
</p>
<p>I do not think that the chairs acted in bad faith, I do believe
that they did what they believed to be the best and right course
of action, I just disagree with their decision that there was
consensus: simply looking at the amount of noise that has been
generated even before ratification tells me there was not, and
still is not, consensus..<br>
</p>
<p>I do agree that some level of overhauling may be required to the
process.<br>
</p>
<p>I think it would be good to let the emotions cool down before
that is done, such that it can be approached rationally.<br>
</p>
<p>I do think we need to focus right now on the transfer policy.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANuMXapRzDhVpYZ25xCCV3cFu0f-t6wTFCQx0MOj23LC3nLfUQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I hear you and I can understand your reasoning. I can even
appreciate that you want it as fast as possible. It is here that
I disagree, I'd rather spend another two to six months and get it
right. This is entirely possible. Amendments at a later stage
won't be "simple" because those that exploit the introduced
loopholes will vehemently oppose such policies changes. Not to
mention that it would be biassed and unfair either to those that
have already transferred, or those that didn't.<br>
</p>
<p>My personal reasoning is that the current policy for intra-RIR
should simply be adjusted as per my suggestion to also permit
inter-RIR transfers. Keeping all other requirements EXACTLY AS
IS.</p>
<p>Either way, there should be NO CHANGES to intra-RIR transfers.
And the tabled proposal does make changes there.</p>
<p>Kind Regards,<br>
Jaco<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANuMXapRzDhVpYZ25xCCV3cFu0f-t6wTFCQx0MOj23LC3nLfUQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
Thanks, Gaby<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 2:01
AM Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">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" moz-do-not-send="true">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vassangbewotto@benintelecoms.bj</a>><br>
> <br>
> <a href="mailto:vivien@intnet.bj"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">vivien@intnet.bj</a>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:vivien@intnet.bj" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> <<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="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"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<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>