[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       afrinic-rpd
Subject:    Re: [rpd] Minute of the last PDWG in Kampala, Uganda
From:       Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest () afrinic ! net>
Date:       2019-07-17 13:44:29
Message-ID: 47AEA663-BAB1-483D-8770-BA415BEDF99F () afrinic ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Sylvain,

Your comprehensive review and suggestions of the draft minutes is noted.
The final and published version will be updated where necessary and appropriate.

Ernest.


> On 17 Jul 2019, at 15:41, Sylvain BAYA <abscoco@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> {Warning : you read the 12 pages but you might find this tl;tr}
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I'm glad to see that this mail complies with the CPM section 3.4.2 (pasted below). \
> I thing it  was possible because the new Chairs have actively worked with the \
> previous Chairs and with  the Staff (perhaps the Staff should be officially \
> responsibilised for taking the minutes -as  Secretariat is mentioned- to be \
> reviewed by the Chairs prior to the publication onlist.  
> ...also, i know we have new Chairs and the CPM section 3.4.2 is not clear about the \
> publishing  action. I mean, if the deadline of publication is about the web site, \
> then due to the public  review we are started, we failed to comply. So if that is \
> the right interpretation,  we are challenged to improve at least two things : 
> 
> + Secretariat (= Staff)  takes the Minutes of the PPM, the Chairs validate the \
> draft of the  Minutes, then send it (draft of the minutes) to the RPD for a public \
> review. At end the  Minutes are published to the website (by the Staff) and the URL \
> is sent onlist (by Chairs).  All that within three weeks.
> 
> + Add a provision to permit a deadline extension when, for some reasons (think of \
> the case  of two new Chairs even if not admitted by the CPM) the Chairs thought \
> that the Minutes  would not be published within three weeks as expected. Actually, \
> there is no provision  (see CPM section 3.4.2) to extend the publication deadline \
> of the PPM Minutes.  
> CPM section 3.4.2 :  «[...]The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of proceedings of \
> the Public  Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.[...] »
> 
> other comments inline...
> 
> Le 7/10/2019 à 9:15 PM, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE a écrit :
> > Dear all,
> > Please find attached the minute of the  Policy Development sessions at the \
> > AFRINIC 30 meeting in Kampala. Uganda.
> 
> Many thanks to all those who was involved (last & new Chairs and the Staff \
> Secretariat :-).  
> > Please feel free to submit your comments on the minute within the next week. We \
> > shall publish the final version after then. Please send your comments to the \
> > mailing list
> 
> * Page 0 :
> 
> File Name : the name of your file should be something like "Draft Minutes of the \
> AFRINIC  
> 30 PPM" but not 31
> 
> ...as a new active contributor, i found the 12 pages of this report very \
> instructive, but  
> i'm not sure those who are contributing for long time will like to read a so \
> detailed,  
> so precise and longer report. {that is my personal opinion, i may be wrong}
> 
> In summary my contribution below consists of two folds :
> 
> + Trying to contract the reported author's speaches to have a brief summary of max \
> 15  
> lines of 80 characters. (considering that for more details we can go to the Authors \
> slides)  
> + Proposing to  
> 
> + Asking to add a, URL, link to the slides provided by the authors after each \
> summary. 
> + Asking to add a, URL, link to the policy proposal itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Page 1 : 
> 
> ..* may the Staff always act practically as Secretariat for the PPM
> 
> ..* i think you should add the following text "Contributors : [previous Chairs]"
> 
> * Page 2 : 
> 
> ..* 2.0 : "[...]The community (is) has people from different backgrounds and \
> cultures[...]" 
> 
> * Page 3 : 
> ..* 3.0 : i suggest a brieffer summary with a URL where to find the 2019 PIER \
> report :  
> <https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/afrinic-pier-2019.pdf>
> 
> ...then, you will not be forced to keep the below lines :
> 
> "[...]Highlights from the PIER on ambiguous CPM content:
> - CPM section 5.4 (Soft Landing) is assumed to be the default policy used in this
> exhaustion phase of IPv4 space, however, it does not align with some other sections
> of the CPM, such as the 90% utilization in 5.4 to qualify for additional addresses \
> vs the 80% utilization in other sections.
> - CPM 5.7.1 allows for Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 space, and does not cater for \
> other resources such as ASN and IPv6. It is also not clear about how to cater for \
> transfers as a result of mergers and acquisitions.
> - The section on Sub-Allocation windows with a 12 months cap on allowed space to be
> sub-allocated does not align with the 8-months cap in the Soft Landing policy.
> - During phase 2 of soft landing, the maximum allowable IPv4 space to be issued is \
> /22 vs the other sections where /22 is the minimum.[...]"
> 
> 
> * Pages 3 to 4 : 
> ..* 4.0 : remove the following text and send the readers to the slides of the \
> author by providing  a URL.
> 
> "[...]- When the ASN assignment policy was originally designed, the main concern \
> was that 16 bits is a limited address space (RFC1930, section 9).
> - This is no longer an issue with 32-bit AS numbers (RFC6793). If each of the five \
> RIRs were to assign 100 AS Numbers a day, 365 days a year, it would take over \
> 20,000 years to deplete the 32-bit space.
> - When initial ASN policies were developed, the reliability of networks was not so
> good back then and it made sense that companies needing an ASN be multihomed.
> - Today this is not necessarily a reasonable requirement. Some networks may require
> an ASN while not willing to be multihomed.
> - The increased IPv6 deployment has also mandated the need for companies to
> announce their IPv6 space with their own ASN without the need to be multihomed.
> - The author stated that ARIN and LACNIC already have such a policy in place, and \
> that an equivalent proposal reached consensus at APNIC47. He also stated that he \
> will submit a similar proposal to the RIPE community very soon.[...]"
> 
> ..* 5.0 : Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link \
> to the policy  proposal.
> 
> * Pages 4 & 5 : 
> ..* 5.0 : if we are sure to have the following arguments into the slides of the \
> author, we  can remove it :
> 
> "[...]- At the moment, all the other regions have already in place a policy \
> proposal for transfers, and all those have no restrictions.
> - With Africa not having sufficient IPv4 resources, limiting the option for \
> incoming transfers of IPv4 space makes difficult the opportunity to create new \
> businesses that will need IPv4 resources. To make matters worse, phase 2 of \
> soft-landing will make the number of resources that organisations within AFRINIC \
>                 can get much smaller.
> - There is already a market situation where AFRINIC member organisations are \
> selling resources illegally and under the table, this policy only makes it official \
> such that such transactions are actually reflected officially in the whois db when \
>                 they happen.
> - Deploying IPv6 now requires some IPv4 space. If there isn't any left and no \
> transfer mechanism to bring some into the continent, IPv6 adoption will \
> stagnate.[...]" 
> Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link to the \
> policy  proposal.
> 
> 
> * Page 6 : 
> ..* 6.0 : For simplicity i'll prefer that you replace all your text by what i \
> propose below : 
> "The authors highlight that there is a /12 IPv4 block reserved from the last /8 for \
> some  
> unforeseen future uses (see CPM section 5.4.7.1 - soft landing policy) but the CPM \
> section  
> 5.4.7.2 states that the BoD has the exclusive power to define when and how to use \
> it.  
> They present their policy proposal as a community-driven mean to prevent the BoD to \
>  
> eventually act without community involvement and consent. Authors add that the 
> 
> Community, via the PDP, is in better position to define the future use of the \
> reserved /12  
> and that is the purpose of their policy proposal.
> 
> Authors propose that the CPM section 5.4.7.2 be worded like this : "If the reserved \
> /12  
> remains unused by the time the remaining available space has been allocated, the \
> /12  
> will be returned to the AFRINIC pool for distribution under the conditions of the \
> phase 2  
> of the soft landing policy" – hence giving community power to decide how to use \
> this /12. 
> Authors further pointed out that this policy proposal was initially presented at \
> Hammamet in Tunisia but sent back to the mailing list for more community inputs and \
> refinements. However, none were received hence it is still the same version from \
> Hammamet. 
> See more on the slides of the Authors presentation : [URL]"
> 
> Please add also the link to the policy proposal itself.
> 
> ..* 7.0 : Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link \
> to the policy  proposal.
> 
> 
> * Page 7 :  
> ..* 8.0 : i would prefer a of 15 lines max summary but it's just my personal \
> opinion. Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link to \
> the policy  proposal.
> 
> 
> * Page 8 : 
> .* 9.0 : This is a good case of a ten (10) lines summary. 
> Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the link to the \
> policy  proposal.
> 
> 
> * Page 9 : 
> ..* 10.0 :  I see this one as a more straight forward summary. Even if it is more \
> than 15 lines.  Please also add the link (URL) to the slides of the author's \
> presentation. 
> 
> * Page 10 : 
> ..* 11.0 : a max of 15 lines (summary of the authors arguments) should be also \
> consider here. Please add the link (URL) to the slides used by the author and the \
> link to the policy  proposal.
> 
> 
> * Page 11 :
> ..* 12.0 : The Minutes must also *mention the incident that occurred when \
> candidates had  the floor* to try to convince the electorate. Remember that a \
> question was discussed twice  and ended by a vote... In fact, we have had the \
> contribution (CPM section 3.4.0) of the Legal  Advisor ; but its usefulness was \
> disputed by someones.  

[…]


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]