<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 9, 2021, at 3:06 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
  
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
  
  <div class=""><p class="">Unfortunatelly, you keep confusing things and making certain
      assumptions that aren't correct.<br class="">
      First ARIN is an exotic scenario different from everything else.
      Thing that apply there (thankfully) don't apply to any other RIR.</p></div></div></blockquote>No, you keep assuming that I am applying ARIN standards elsewhere and I am not. I just went through a comparison for you of</div><div>each of the 5 RIR’s policies in this regard, hoping you’d realize that I actually do have a broader understanding and experience</div><div>than just ARIN. Unfortunately, you seem to fail to recognize that I can make the exact same statement about RIPE, yet you keep</div><div>attempting to apply your RIPE-NCC based perspective to the world.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Expedited process in LACNIC does NOT mean the same thing we are
      discussing here. Expedited process in LACNIC means shorter times
      for discussion, Chairs reviews, ratification by the Board to then
      be presented in a Public Forum afterwards (the last one is what
      makes it to be more expedited). Also and more importantly all this
      is fully covered by the PDP which has been previously approved by
      the community and ratified by the Board. Nowhere in the LACNIC PDP
      mentions anything related to the possibility that Board can adopt
      policies by itself without any input of the community, exactly as
      it is expected by ICP-2 a base condition for any RIR to start
      exist as a RIR to always have the involvement of all stakeholders.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div>I didn’t say that it does. I believe I provided a fair summary of the LACNIC process below statin that it is community driven.</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
    </p><p class="">It does not matter that bylaws give the Board authority to
      implement emergency policies. That is a void thing. Bylaws do not
      govern the PDP and will never. If someone one day had the idea to
      put that in the bylaws of any RIR that person probably didn't know
      what he was doing as that cannot exist in practice. If a Board
      would dare to assume they can do that by themselves they would put
      the RIR in big trouble against not only its own regional community
      but also international community that would seriously dispute that
      action.</p></div></div></blockquote>You continue to make this claim and you continue to be wrong. The board, whether you like it or not, is in charge of appointing the CEO and the CEO is accountable to manage the organization according to the directives of the board. The bylaws make this very clear and the bylaws are the legal governing document of the corporation. Thus, AFRINIC employees are held to account to the CEO to operate in accordance with the policies set forth by the board. That’s one of the reasons that the PDP requires board ratification of any policy passed by the community.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">I fail to understand why you seem to defend this prerogative is
      valid just because they are written in the bylaws. Have already
      discussed that bylaws govern the organization for legal effects
      only. Policy Development and Internet business in general concerns
      much broader audience is something that is much beyond the bylaws
      of an organization.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div>I’m not defending anything. I’m describing the factual situation as it exists, whether it is to either of our liking or not. Personally, I have some of the same issues with it that you do, but denying the reality of it will not resolve anything. If we wish to change this reality, we must first face the reality and recognize it for what it is. Your refusal to do so does nothing to advance your cause.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
    </p><p class="">Fernando<br class="">
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/03/2021 19:46, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:BBC22984-F6FA-4B7C-A52B-4CCA1BCDC4B8@delong.com" class="">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
      It has already happened more than once within the ARIN region and
      in both cases, the boards emergency action was subsequently
      ratified by the AC based on positive feedback from the community.
      <div class=""><br class="">
      </div>
      <div class="">I have not found examples of use of this emergency
        authority in other RIRs, though I believe the expedited
        community process has been used in LACNIC at least once.<br class="">
        <div class=""><br class="">
        </div>
        <div class="">APNIC put this slide deck out in 2013:</div>
        <div class=""><a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi46vrEmqTvAhVUHTQIHSVfBuUQFjADegQIBBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.apnic.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Ficann-aso%2Fassets%2Fapnic-policy-process-ga4.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2csuvQ3OmT4Hs5Guu9lsnk" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">Policy Development Processes
            in the APNIC Regionwww.apnic.net › assets ›
            apnic-policy-process-ga4</a></div>
        <div class=""><br class="">
        </div>
        <div class="">Search for Emergency and you will find a slide
          that clearly states that the bylaws in APNIC give the board
          authority to implement emergency policies. In fact, the bylaws
          grant the APNIC</div>
        <div class="">EC even broader powers than that, Part V, section
          30 paragraph “e”:</div>
        <blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
          0px;" class="">
          <div class=""><span style="font-family: "Whitney SSm
              A", "Whitney SSm B", Arial, sans-serif;
              font-size: 16px;" class="">e. to consider broad Internet
              policy issues in order to ensure that APNIC’s policies and
              strategies fully respond to the constantly changing
              Internet environment;</span></div>
        </blockquote>
        <div class=""><br class="">
        </div>
        <div class="">RIPE appears to have no emergency process.</div>
        <div class="">LACNIC has an expedited policy process, but it is
          community driven.</div>
        <div class=""><br class="">
        </div>
        <div class="">We’ve already covered the details of the AFRINIC
          Bylaws and what is specified there in previous posts.</div>
        <div class=""><br class="">
        </div>
        <div class="">
          <div class="">
            <div class="">
              <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                <div class="">On Mar 8, 2021, at 6:32 PM, Fernando
                  Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
                  wrote:</div>
                <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
                <div class="">
                  <div class="">Hi Owen<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    I believe your understanding is very wrong regarding
                    RIR prerogatives regarding PDP, but I will not
                    continue this discussion as we are starting to go in
                    circles.<br class="">
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div class=""><br class="">
              </div>
              I’m aware of this. I’ve presented documents, bylaws, and
              other information which shows my understanding to be
              correct. You continue to deny these facts, yet you’ve
              offered nothing concrete to support your position.</div>
            <div class=""><br class="">
              <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                <div class="">
                  <div class="">I just hope no Board on any RIR ever
                    commit the mistake to believe they can make policies
                    by themselves just because they believe this is
                    their right to do for "some emergency or noble
                    reason" and "for the good of community".<br class="">
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
              <div class=""><br class="">
              </div>
              I think that the likelihood of a board going rogue in an
              RIR is relatively low, but even if that does happen, there
              are safeguards in place to limit how rogue they can go. In
              all cases, the membership can eventually replace a rogue
              board through the election process. Most of the emergency
              policy authorities of the board(s) have limits and/or
              requirements for subsequent review and usually
              ratification by the community of their actions. The
              community generally has the power to reverse any such
              policy through the applicable PDP.</div>
            <div class=""><br class="">
            </div>
            <div class="">Owen</div>
            <div class=""><br class="">
              <blockquote type="cite" class="">
                <div class="">
                  <div class=""><br class="">
                    Fernando<br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    On 08/03/2021 17:14, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
                    <blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">On Mar 3, 2021,
                        at 18:15 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
                        wrote:<br class="">
                        <br class="">
                        Owen, I believe you are confusing things here.
                        Perhaps you are applying some ARIN specific
                        scenario you may know better to all other RIRs
                        which is incorrect.<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      Please stop making assumptions about me. You are
                      not correct.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">AfriNic exist as
                        any other institution and have a bylaws that
                        govern the organization for legal and financial
                        proposals within a country. But to be and
                        operate as a RIR it must have some recognition
                        from different stakeholders as for example
                        community, other internet organizations and
                        ICANN which requires certain standards of
                        operation and which are much beyond what the
                        bylaws do for the organization.<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      Actually, ICANN does not have the authority to
                      sanction new RIRs. The IANA is involved in that
                      process.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      As I understand it, the empowered community
                      through the NRO controls the awarding of the IANA
                      functions contract which is currently awarded to
                      ICANN and subcontracted too PTI. (I’m still not
                      100% clear on the relationship between ICANN and
                      PTI).<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">Different from
                        what you said that PDWG is NOT a concession that
                        the Board give to the community. If it was like
                        that and Board by its own could make up Internet
                        policies by its own, the organization would
                        certainly not be recognized as a RIR, but just a
                        normal organization and those policies would be
                        useless.<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      I did not say that the PDWG is a concession given
                      to the community to the board. I stated that in
                      terms of corporate governance and operation, any
                      authority that the PDWG has is granted to it by
                      the board and/or the bylaws of the organization.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      This is technically true of every RIR, whether you
                      like it or not. It’s also true that in order to
                      become accredited through ICP-2, something like
                      the PDWG must be a structural component of the
                      organization at the time sanction is granted by
                      the NRO and IANA.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">It the Board of
                        any RIR would ever call that prerogative to
                        themselves alone the organization would still
                        exist legally but it would lack community, other
                        internet organizations and mainly ICANN
                        (IANA/PRI whatever you may like to call)
                        recognition as a RIR which MUST operate under
                        certain standards which some of them are guided
                        by ICP2 and which different from what you
                        believe is the guide document not only to be
                        used one-off to form a new RIR by for a RIR to
                        remain recognized as such and operate within
                        those principles.<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      That’s not entirely clear. I do agree that there
                      is some power of ISPs to disregard the RIR system
                      or a particular RIR and develop some other basis
                      for registering unique numeric identifiers.
                      However, I think that in reality, any such event
                      occurring in any cohesive way would be nearly
                      impossible in the most collegial of situations,
                      let alone the current environment.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">Or do you really
                        thing that if any Board would retain the
                        prerogative to make policies only by themselves
                        the community, ICANN and even many of its
                        members would still keep recognizing it as a RIR
                        ?<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      Every RIR board has the prerogative to make
                      policies by themselves (with the possible
                      exception of RIPE-NCC, I have not reviewed their
                      bylaws). It is rarely used, but every RIR has an
                      emergency policy process where the board can enact
                      a policy change. Each of those processes also has
                      a procedure for subsequent review, input, comment,
                      and/or revision/repeal by the community, but given
                      that there is a limit to the speed with which the
                      community can act and the boards have no such
                      limitation, a board that wanted to act in bad
                      faith could easily abuse this authority.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">Therefore CPM is
                        not and cannot be governed by any RIR bylaws and
                        why Board cannot adopt policies unless that
                        permission is given by the community after due
                        process.<br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                      The CPM is absolutely governed by the bylaws and
                      the board can absolutely do so. The CPM is a
                      corporate operational document of the
                      organization, whether you like it or not. Sure,
                      the community could create some other structure
                      with a fork of the CPM or even a brand new version
                      and call that new structure authoritative for
                      number resource registrations in the region.
                      However, getting that new structure accepted by
                      consensus of the community, let alone sanctioned
                      under ICP-2 would be a pretty hard uphill battle.<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      Owen<br class="">
                      <br class="">
                      <blockquote type="cite" class="">Fernando<br class="">
                        <br class="">
                        On 03/03/2021 17:33, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
                        <blockquote type="cite" class="">Fernando,<br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          You are living in a fantasy world if you
                          believe this. The bylaws are effectively the
                          constitution<br class="">
                          of the organization and are the primary
                          document by which the organization is
                          governed. The<br class="">
                          Community does not have standing to control or
                          override them, nor to change them. The<br class="">
                          Membership may change the bylaws by resolution
                          at a members meeting. The community<br class="">
                          cannot.<br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          The community receives what powers it has by
                          grant from the bylaws and/or the board. This
                          is<br class="">
                          the way that the corporate governance
                          structure of AFRINIC is set up and as near as
                          I can tell,<br class="">
                          that’s true across the board of all of the
                          RIRs with the possible exception of RIPE-NCC
                          (though<br class="">
                          I believe it’s actually true there as well,
                          technically).<br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          To the best of my knowledge, this structure is
                          required for legal compliance in virtually
                          ever<br class="">
                          Jurisdiction and it is not (to the best of my
                          knowledge) legally possible to create a
                          structure<br class="">
                          where an unaccountable community holds the
                          fiduciary control of an organization (which<br class="">
                          is what you are essentially claiming here).<br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          Owen<br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          <br class="">
                          <blockquote type="cite" class="">On Mar 3,
                            2021, at 5:50 AM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
                            wrote:<br class="">
                            <br class="">
                            Owen, the Board does not have the power to
                            modify the CPM even on a emergency basis.
                            This applies on ARIN where you may be more
                            used with but not here in AfriNic as the
                            community didn't gave that prerogative to
                            them and it does not matter they are the
                            responsible for the RIR. CPM is not
                            something regulated by the bylaws.<br class="">
                            <br class="">
                            Fernando<br class="">
                            <br class="">
                            On 03/03/2021 04:09, Owen DeLong via RPD
                            wrote:<br class="">
                            <blockquote type="cite" class="">Could the
                              AFRINIC Board please explain this? The AC
                              should not be under a gag order or
                              prvented<br class="">
                              from continuing its processing of the
                              appeals on its docket (which are in
                              progress as specified in the<br class="">
                              ToR).<br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              Also, under the existing rules, it is my
                              opinion that the AC should either reject
                              this request to reconsider<br class="">
                              or accept it in a timely manner. In the
                              event they accept it, then this is an
                              appeal that remains in progress<br class="">
                              and is no longer complete and they should
                              proceed with it despite the resignations
                              as specified in the<br class="">
                              ToR.<br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              We really must start following the rules
                              we have established and not having the
                              board and others<br class="">
                              making up random new rules as they see
                              fit.<br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              If you don’t like the rules or feel that
                              the rules do not fit the situation, then
                              there are defined processes<br class="">
                              by which they can be modified. Those
                              processes have rules and exist to protect
                              the rights of the<br class="">
                              community as well as the board. The board
                              has full power to modify the ToR or the
                              CPM on an<br class="">
                              emergency basis if needed, so there really
                              is no excuse for not doing this properly.<br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              Owen<br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <br class="">
                              <blockquote type="cite" class="">On Mar 2,
                                2021, at 1:21 AM, <a href="mailto:paulos@sdnp.org.mw" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">paulos@sdnp.org.mw</a>
                                wrote:<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                Diren,<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                Please note that the Appeal Committee
                                has been gagged by the Afrinic Board
                                Chair and<br class="">
                                hence is currently unable to handle such
                                requests.<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                Regards,<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                Paulos<br class="">
                                ========================<br class="">
                                Dr Paulos Nyirenda<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                ------- Forwarded message follows
                                -------<br class="">
                                Date sent:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">       </span>Mon,
                                01 Mar 2021 15:13:39 +0100<br class="">
                                From:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">    </span><a href="mailto:diren@vanilla.co.za" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">diren@vanilla.co.za</a><br class="">
                                To:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">      </span><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pdwg-appeal@afrinic.net">pdwg-appeal@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
                                Subject:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Re:
                                [PDWG-Appeal] [rpd] REPORT ON Appeal
                                against the non-consensus<br class="">
                                <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>determination
                                on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02
                                (RPKI ROAs for<br class="">
                                <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Unallocated
                                and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                Good day! As you asked, I´ve collected
                                to you several necessary<br class="">
                                docs and<br class="">
                                attached them to the email. If you
                                really will want to find some info,<br class="">
                                you know, whom to ask.<br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                <br class="">
                                On 2021-02-07 20:48,  wrote:<br class="">
                                <blockquote type="cite" class="">Could
                                  the Appeal Committee respond to this,
                                  and reconsider the work<br class="">
                                  they are doing, as I just explained in
                                  my previous email, taking the<br class="">
                                  inputs of the Recall Committee?<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Regards,<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Jordi<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  @jordipalet<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  El 26/1/21 12:14, "JORDI PALET
                                  MARTINEZ via RPD"
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a><br class="">
                                  escribi:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  In case the Appeal Committee is not
                                  subscribed to the RPD list.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Waiting for your response.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Regards,<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Jordi<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  @jordipalet<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  El 26/1/21 11:50, "JORDI PALET
                                  MARTINEZ"<br class="">
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es"><jordi.palet@consulintel.es></a>
                                  escribi:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Hi Wafa, all,<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  First of all, dont take anything that
                                  I say personally, but in<br class="">
                                  general I see a total failure of the
                                  Appeal Committee and lack of<br class="">
                                  compliance with the PDP.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Your judgment must be on the grounds
                                  of a correct decision of the<br class="">
                                  chairs.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  In taking such decision the Appeal
                                  Committee must be based on facts,<br class="">
                                  never on personal opinions (from the
                                  community or the chairs or the<br class="">
                                  Appeal Committee itself). Being based
                                  on objective facts means<br class="">
                                  checking if what the policy proposal
                                  said, what were the objections,<br class="">
                                  and if those objections *are real*,
                                  not just illusions or lack of<br class="">
                                  knowledge or untrue or personal
                                  preferences.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  If the Appeal Committee doesnt have
                                  the right knowledge, as I<br class="">
                                  already said I believe was the reason
                                  the chairs took the wrong<br class="">
                                  decision, then they should ask for
                                  help to the staff or third<br class="">
                                  parties.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Any objection to a policy proposal
                                  must be duly justified and that<br class="">
                                  justification not addressed by the
                                  authors or other community<br class="">
                                  members.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Any policy proposal that has
                                  objections, the objections MUST BE<br class="">
                                  VALID, even if the objections come
                                  from 99% of the community. This<br class="">
                                  is not democracy, is not number of
                                  votes or voices, is based on<br class="">
                                  non-addressed objections. It is not
                                  based on untrue objections. None<br class="">
                                  of the objections to this policy
                                  proposal were valid. They are<br class="">
                                  mostly based on lack of sufficient
                                  knowledge, and never lack of<br class="">
                                  knowledge can be a VALID reason.
                                  Again, not only the authors, but<br class="">
                                  many other expert community members
                                  have confirmed that those<br class="">
                                  objections are invalid.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  A policy proposal never can be based
                                  in I dont like it. You need<br class="">
                                  to state I dont like it because it
                                  breaks this RFC (for example).<br class="">
                                  And even in that cases authors can
                                  respond showing why the<br class="">
                                  perception of breaking this RFC is
                                  wrong (so addressing the<br class="">
                                  objection will nullify it). Policies
                                  are not based on personal<br class="">
                                  preferences, but in what is the best
                                  *technically correct choice*<br class="">
                                  for the community.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Last but not least, the Appeal
                                  Committee seems to be working as a<br class="">
                                  democratic body, which is wrong. ALL
                                  THE PDP is based in consensus<br class="">
                                  approach. The Appeal Committee must
                                  also follow that approach,<br class="">
                                  otherwise, it is breaking the ICP-2,
                                  which is the higher mandate of<br class="">
                                  how the policy making process works.
                                  If 3 members of the Appeal<br class="">
                                  Committee believe that the opposition
                                  was correct, they should<br class="">
                                  *demonstrate with facts why* and this
                                  must be done using the<br class="">
                                  responses provided by the authors and
                                  community to those objections.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  If 3 members of the Appeal Committee
                                  believe that any of the<br class="">
                                  objections has not been addressed,
                                  they need to *demonstrate why*,<br class="">
                                  taking in consideration the community
                                  and author responses, and<br class="">
                                  those must be crystal clear in the
                                  report, which is not the case.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The Appeal Committee must respond to
                                  the authors, in a consensus<br class="">
                                  based approach, not a democratic one
                                  to all what the authors<br class="">
                                  confirmed in the Appeal Document.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Note also that there is a paragraph in
                                  the Appeal Report that<br class="">
                                  completely kills the PDP and
                                  demonstrates that the Appeal Committee<br class="">
                                  HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THEIR JOB AT ALL:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The 3 members who observed significant
                                  opposition to the policy,<br class="">
                                  however, also observed that it is the
                                  PDWG that builds consensus and<br class="">
                                  decides whether issues of opposition
                                  are addressed to the<br class="">
                                  satisfaction of the PDWG which is
                                  where the PDP requires that<br class="">
                                  consensus is assessed by the
                                  Co-Chairs.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The PDP states clearly that the Appeal
                                  Committee need to review the<br class="">
                                  chairs decision. If the chairs have
                                  considered as VALID objections<br class="">
                                  that OBJECTIVELY ARE INVALID, it is
                                  clear that the Appeal Committee<br class="">
                                  must declare the lack of consensus
                                  declaration is invalid, and<br class="">
                                  consequently, the proposal reached
                                  consensus.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Lets go the details and I ask the
                                  Appeal Committee to respond to<br class="">
                                  each of the objections included and
                                  refuted in the Appeal Document:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.1.   a. Allowing resource holders to
                                  create AS0/ ROA will lead to<br class="">
                                  an increase of even more invalid
                                  prefixes in the routing table<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Following RFC6483, section 4 (A ROA
                                  with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0<br class="">
                                  ROA) is an attestation by the holder
                                  of a prefix that the prefix<br class="">
                                  described in the ROA, and any more
                                  specific prefix, should not be<br class="">
                                  used in a routing context) resource
                                  holders, as part of the RPKI<br class="">
                                  system already can and actually do
                                  this (example IXPs), in fact they<br class="">
                                  do. This has been explained several
                                  times, including my presentation<br class="">
                                  at the PPM. The proposal is just
                                  adding light about actual facts<br class="">
                                  regarding this aspect, not changing
                                  anything, so it cant be a valid<br class="">
                                  objection for the policy proposal.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.2.   b. Revocation time of AS0
                                  state, and the time for new<br class="">
                                  allocation doesnt match<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This is not true, again a
                                  misunderstanding about how RPKI works.
                                  The<br class="">
                                  authors and other several community
                                  experts have discussed this in<br class="">
                                  the list. If you get number resources
                                  from AFRINIC, normally you<br class="">
                                  dont announce them in minutes, or
                                  hours, or even days. There is<br class="">
                                  some work to do in your network, you
                                  need to do changes in systems<br class="">
                                  and routers, and this takes hours, and
                                  normally you cant touch<br class="">
                                  systems during the day, but only in
                                  maintenance windows in the<br class="">
                                  night. That means that if AFRINIC
                                  revokes an AS0 certificate, it<br class="">
                                  will be done in a few minutes during
                                  the day. So even if the<br class="">
                                  worldwide caches take hours to see
                                  that, there is no negative<br class="">
                                  impact.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  In addition to that, this it can be
                                  improved thru implementation, as<br class="">
                                  I already explained also in the list.
                                  The staff could tentatively<br class="">
                                  release from the AS0 the resources
                                  that they plan to allocate once a<br class="">
                                  week or every couple of days, etc. For
                                  example, when they are<br class="">
                                  processing a request, and they are
                                  pending on final documentation,<br class="">
                                  the RSA signature for new members, or
                                  the review with the member of<br class="">
                                  the justified need. Many other
                                  examples can be provided about how to<br class="">
                                  do it. The proposal doesnt go into any
                                  of those details, because<br class="">
                                  the understanding is that those are
                                  too depth operational, and in<br class="">
                                  fact the staff could decide an
                                  approach during the implementation,<br class="">
                                  and based on experience improve it
                                  afterwards.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The conclusion is that there is no
                                  such matching, neither<br class="">
                                  unmatching, so this cant be taken as a
                                  valid objection for the<br class="">
                                  proposal.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.3.   c. Other RIRs dont have a
                                  similar the policy therefore, it<br class="">
                                  can not be effective<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  All the policies have different
                                  discussions in different RIRs at<br class="">
                                  different times. This policy is
                                  already available (reached consensus<br class="">
                                  and implemented) in APNIC and LACNIC
                                  (reached consensus, being<br class="">
                                  implemented). There is work being done
                                  in ARIN and RIPE (the first<br class="">
                                  proposal was not accepted), not yet
                                  public. So, this is untrue if<br class="">
                                  you look at all the RIRs.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The effectivity of a policy is not
                                  only related to how many RIRs<br class="">
                                  implement it. In this case, any RIR
                                  having this policy is actually<br class="">
                                  stronger than the other RIRs not
                                  having it, in terms of routing<br class="">
                                  security. It shows the commitment of
                                  that RIR about the RPKI usage<br class="">
                                  with all its possibilities. It
                                  facilitates the operators in the<br class="">
                                  region and outside the region to
                                  identify in a simpler and automated<br class="">
                                  way, what prefixes should not be in
                                  the routing tables and<br class="">
                                  consequently allow them in an opt-in
                                  basis, to discard them. So, it<br class="">
                                  is in the other way around, any RIR
                                  with this policy could be said<br class="">
                                  that it is more effective (even if it
                                  is not probably the right<br class="">
                                  wording for this topic) that the
                                  others. We should rather say that<br class="">
                                  a RIR with this policy is offering a
                                  more secure view of their<br class="">
                                  routing information.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  In addition to that, there are
                                  policies in AFRINIC which arent<br class="">
                                  available in other RIRs. That,
                                  clearly, doesnt make them invalid<br class="">
                                  (or in other words, this is an invalid
                                  objection  is good that all<br class="">
                                  RIRs do the same, but is not always
                                  the case, or not at the same<br class="">
                                  time), clearly this shows that this
                                  cant be taken as a valid<br class="">
                                  objection against this policy
                                  proposal.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.4.   d. This will become a uniform
                                  policy if it is not globally<br class="">
                                  implemented, which causes additional
                                  stress<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This is almost a duplicate of the
                                  previous one. Absolutely not. We<br class="">
                                  can add that the way we suggest the
                                  staff, and they confirmed, with<br class="">
                                  an independent TAL protects, as
                                  intended by the proposal, the<br class="">
                                  resources of the RIR implementing it,
                                  not creating any issues in<br class="">
                                  what is done in other RIRs to any
                                  operator, so it cant be taken as<br class="">
                                  a valid objection against this policy
                                  proposal.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  It is difficult to understand what it
                                  means additional stress in<br class="">
                                  this context, but clearly, it will be
                                  in the other way around. As<br class="">
                                  more RIRs implement it, less manual
                                  work in terms of filtering, is<br class="">
                                  needed to be done by operators, if
                                  they opt to use the AS0 ROA<br class="">
                                  service from the RIRs that have
                                  implemented it. So, it is not<br class="">
                                  correct and thus, not a valid
                                  objection.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  If the question is about if this
                                  policy should be a Global Policy,<br class="">
                                  the response has also been provided in
                                  the discussion. Ideally, a<br class="">
                                  Global Policy will be only able to
                                  protect the IANA unallocated<br class="">
                                  resources, but not the resources that
                                  IANA already allocated to each<br class="">
                                  RIR. In fact, Im already working (when
                                  time permits it will be made<br class="">
                                  public) in a Global Policy for that,
                                  but this is irrelevant versus<br class="">
                                  having a policy at every RIR (or a few
                                  of them), so again,<br class="">
                                  objectively not a valid objection.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.5.   e. Validity period:   if
                                  members decide to implement it, is<br class="">
                                  it not better to recover the space if
                                  it is kept unused for too<br class="">
                                  long?<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This doesnt make sense, at least not
                                  as worded. This is not about<br class="">
                                  recovering space, no relation. It is
                                  the unused space hold by<br class="">
                                  AFRINIC, regardless of if it was never
                                  allocated/assigned, returned<br class="">
                                  by members, or recovered by AFRINIC.
                                  Once more, not a valid<br class="">
                                  objection.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.6.   f. How do we revoke the ROA?
                                  How long does it take to revoke<br class="">
                                  it (chain/ refreshing )?<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This looks the same as 2.2 above. It
                                  doesnt matter in practice, if<br class="">
                                  it takes minutes or hours or even
                                  days. Community and staff provided<br class="">
                                  some facts about this, just to cite a
                                  couple of them:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html</a> [1]<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html</a> [2]<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.7.   g. What happens if AFRINIC
                                  accidentally issues a ROA for an<br class="">
                                  address in error?<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  What happens if AFRINIC accidentally
                                  issues a ROA without an address<br class="">
                                  already allocated to members?<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Exactly the same if the existing RPKI
                                  fails, and thats why there<br class="">
                                  are monitoring systems in place and as
                                  reported by the staff impact<br class="">
                                  analysis, this proposal will ensure
                                  that the monitoring is improved,<br class="">
                                  so it is actually helping on the right
                                  direction, not in the other<br class="">
                                  way around.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Further to that, because the systems
                                  of operators have caches, it is<br class="">
                                  all depending (for the existing TAL
                                  and for the new one implemented<br class="">
                                  with this proposal) on how much time
                                  it takes to AFRINIC to resolve<br class="">
                                  the error and the specific
                                  configuration of the operators and if<br class="">
                                  they actually drop invalid prefixes or
                                  they only create alerts,<br class="">
                                  trigger some processes, etc. Note that
                                  RPKI doesnt force the<br class="">
                                  operators to drop the prefixes even if
                                  they are using RPKI, there<br class="">
                                  are different ways to take advantage
                                  of this.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This proposal doesn't change that, it
                                  is provided as an opt-in<br class="">
                                  service and consequently it is not a
                                  valid objection.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.8.   h. It also might affect the
                                  neighbours and involves<br class="">
                                  monitoring of unallocated spaces<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  It is not clear if neighbours here is
                                  referring to BGP peering ones.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  The same monitoring that right now is
                                  done AFRINIC for<br class="">
                                  unallocated/unassigned spaces could be
                                  improved with this proposal.<br class="">
                                  AFRINIC already, today, needs to make
                                  sure that they get alerts if<br class="">
                                  unallocated/unassigned space appears
                                  in the routing tables, because<br class="">
                                  that may imply that a member may be
                                  violating the RSA, bylaws,<br class="">
                                  policies, etc.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Exactly the same as for operators
                                  connected to Internet with BGP.<br class="">
                                  The proposal allows them, as an opt-in
                                  service, to improve if they<br class="">
                                  wish, the automation of all that, and
                                  to use the service in the way<br class="">
                                  they decide. The proposal is not
                                  forcing operators any specific<br class="">
                                  usage for the service, it is entirely
                                  at their own<br class="">
                                  decision/discretion.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This proposal ensures that the service
                                  is improved so, hijacking of<br class="">
                                  unused space is less prone to occur,
                                  thats the purpose of the<br class="">
                                  proposal and RPKI, increase the
                                  routing security, without making it<br class="">
                                  mandatory for any operator.
                                  Consequently, once more, this cant be<br class="">
                                  considered a valid objection.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  2.9.   i. Possibility of it being used
                                  against a member who is yet<br class="">
                                  to pay dues<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  According to AFRINIC bylaws and RSA,
                                  AFRINIC has the obligation to<br class="">
                                  avoid members not paying to stop using
                                  the resources, so they are<br class="">
                                  available to other members.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  It will be unfair and discriminatory
                                  to other members not doing so,<br class="">
                                  and thats the reason, even if we dont
                                  have this proposal, AFRINIC<br class="">
                                  could at any time, following the
                                  bylaws and RSA, do whatever<br class="">
                                  actions, including legal and technical
                                  ones, to make sure that<br class="">
                                  unallocated, or unassigned, or
                                  returned, or recovered resources are<br class="">
                                  not used. As part of those actions,
                                  AFRINIC could even ask in courts<br class="">
                                  to stop routing those resources, even
                                  to other operators. It is<br class="">
                                  AFRINIC duty, practically will
                                  probably not make sense in terms of<br class="">
                                  the cost (unless a major hijacking of
                                  AFRINIC resources occurs).<br class="">
                                  Most probably just the cooperation
                                  among operators, without any<br class="">
                                  legal requirement, will make that
                                  happen. So, this proposal doesnt<br class="">
                                  change that in the sense of adding to
                                  AFRINIC any new prerogative<br class="">
                                  because already have that right and
                                  duty regarding the responsible<br class="">
                                  use of the resources only to the
                                  allocated/assigned parties and in<br class="">
                                  compliance with the legal bindings.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  To further explain this, if a member
                                  decides to stop paying,<br class="">
                                  AFRINIC, following legal bindings,
                                  will follow a procedure to try to<br class="">
                                  fix it, and if it doesnt succeed, will
                                  remove whois data (which in<br class="">
                                  turn will cause the removal of route
                                  objects that depend on them),<br class="">
                                  RDNS (which means the address space
                                  becomes in general unusable),<br class="">
                                  etc.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Clearly, once more, this cant be
                                  considered a valid objection, on<br class="">
                                  the other way around is a fundamental
                                  AFRINICs right and duty.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  I urge you to respond to each of those
                                  objections, accepted by the<br class="">
                                  chairs to declare the lack of
                                  consensus, that the authors and other<br class="">
                                  community members DEMONSTRATED with
                                  OBJECTIVE information, are<br class="">
                                  invalid.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Again, please, Appeal Committee
                                  members, respond OBJECTIVELY AND<br class="">
                                  BASED ON FACTS, NOT PERSONAL
                                  PREFERENCES. The report MUST contain<br class="">
                                  detailed demonstration of why the
                                  Appeal Committee (not individual<br class="">
                                  members) say each of those objections
                                  has not been addressed, while<br class="">
                                  the authors and community believe
                                  otherwise.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This is what we expect from an Appeal
                                  Committee, to OBJECTIVELY<br class="">
                                  review what the chairs objserved, when
                                  the Appeal Document clearly<br class="">
                                  demonstrated that it is invalid and
                                  consequently the chairs took a<br class="">
                                  wrong decision, based on personal
                                  preferences of community members<br class="">
                                  or lack of knowledge, or other not
                                  objective or untrue facts.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Regards,<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Jordi<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  @jordipalet<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  El 22/1/21 13:59, "wafa Dahmani"
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:wafatn7604@gmail.com"><wafatn7604@gmail.com></a> escribi:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Dear Community,<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This is to inform you that the Report
                                  on Appeal against the<br class="">
                                  non-consensus determination on
                                  proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02<br class="">
                                  (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and
                                  Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space<br class="">
                                  Draft 2) and the minutes have been
                                  published following the links<br class="">
                                  below:<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/20210121-rpki-roa-appeal-report.p">https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/20210121-rpki-roa-appeal-report.p</a><br class="">
                                  df<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals">https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals</a><br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Best Regards<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Wafa Dahmani<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Chair of the Appeal Committee<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list<br class="">
                                  <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><br class="">
                                  <br class="">
**********************************************<br class="">
                                  IPv4 is over<br class="">
                                  Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br class="">
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theipv6company.com/">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br class="">
                                  The IPv6 Company<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This electronic message contains
                                  information which may be privileged<br class="">
                                  or confidential. The information is
                                  intended to be for the exclusive<br class="">
                                  use of the individual(s) named above
                                  and further non-explicilty<br class="">
                                  authorized disclosure, copying,
                                  distribution or use of the contents<br class="">
                                  of this information, even if
                                  partially, including attached files,
                                  is<br class="">
                                  strictly prohibited and will be
                                  considered a criminal offense. If<br class="">
                                  you are not the intended recipient be
                                  aware that any disclosure,<br class="">
                                  copying, distribution or use of the
                                  contents of this information,<br class="">
                                  even if partially, including attached
                                  files, is strictly prohibited,<br class="">
                                  will be considered a criminal offense,
                                  so you must reply to the<br class="">
                                  original sender to inform about this
                                  communication and delete it.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list<br class="">
                                  <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><br class="">
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you<br class="">
                                  ready for the new Internet ?
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theipv6company.com/">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> The IPv6<br class="">
                                  Company<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  This electronic message contains
                                  information which may be privileged<br class="">
                                  or confidential. The information is
                                  intended to be for the exclusive<br class="">
                                  use of the individual(s) named above
                                  and further non-explicilty<br class="">
                                  authorized disclosure, copying,
                                  distribution or use of the contents<br class="">
                                  of this information, even if
                                  partially, including attached files,
                                  is<br class="">
                                  strictly prohibited and will be
                                  considered a criminal offense. If<br class="">
                                  you are not the intended recipient be
                                  aware that any disclosure,<br class="">
                                  copying, distribution or use of the
                                  contents of this information,<br class="">
                                  even if partially, including attached
                                  files, is strictly prohibited,<br class="">
                                  will be considered a criminal offense,
                                  so you must reply to the<br class="">
                                  original sender to inform about this
                                  communication and delete it.<br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  <br class="">
                                  Links:<br class="">
                                  ------<br class="">
                                  [1]
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html</a><br class="">
                                  [2]
                                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html</a><br class="">
                                </blockquote>
                                ------- End of forwarded message -------<br class="">
                                <br class="">
<-><prepared-35.zip><->_______________________________________________<br class="">
                                RPD mailing list<br class="">
                                <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
                              </blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
                              RPD mailing list<br class="">
                              <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
                            </blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br class="">
                            RPD mailing list<br class="">
                            <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
                          </blockquote>
                        </blockquote>
                        <br class="">
                        _______________________________________________<br class="">
                        RPD mailing list<br class="">
                        <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
                        <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
                      </blockquote>
                    </blockquote>
                    <br class="">
                    <br class="">
                    _______________________________________________<br class="">
                    RPD mailing list<br class="">
                    <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
                    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
                  </div>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <br class="">
          </div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>