<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-12 10:31 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br><div><span class="gmail-"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 12, 2017, at 02:46 , abel ELITCHA <<a href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com" target="_blank">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_5808150951132192528Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Mark,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-05-12 8:42 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">mje@posix.co.za</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>The "Internet Shutdown" policy has caused discussion around the
world.</p></div></blockquote><div>Much of an abuse which serves personal agenda. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Can you clarify or substantiate this claim? I’m not seeing it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Welcome into this discussion.. much has been said and if you don't see, it will come...<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><span class="gmail-"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p>This is proof of the multi-stakeholder approach at work
(its being argued by multiple stakeholders, both for and against).
The very fact that this policy has engendered so much debate does
not indicate a problem with the policy, rather, it shows that the
process works and is resulting in debate and discussion that is
both constructive and healthy.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Does AFRINIC PDP seeks general debates and discussions? PDP everywhere has scope and this debate is clearly out of scope.<br></div><div>You could get your "constructive and healthy " discussions and propoganda through lists like community-discuss and get slot to present at meetings. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>This debate is about an address issuance (or not) policy and is therefore very much in scope. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No Owen, What issue are we solving? The actual debate is about how to deal with governments shutting down free and open access to the internet. </div><div>The problem statement says:</div><div><br></div><div>"</div><div>1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal</div><div><br></div><div>Over the last few years we have seen more and more governments shutting down the free and open access to the internet in order to push political and other agendas. These shutdowns have been shown to cause economic damage and hurt the citizens of the affected countries.</div><div>"</div><div>plus...</div><div>"</div><div>2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem</div><div><br></div><div>While the authors of this policy acknowledge that what is proposed is draconian in nature, we feel that the time has come for action to be taken, rather than just bland statements that have shown to have little or no effect.</div><div> </div><div>"</div><div>So,, please... </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>You may argue that the larger issue of internet shutdowns are out of scope and that may well be, but a policy which seeks to modify address issuance criteria no matter what those criteria are based on is very much in scope for the PDP.</div><div><br></div><div>I’m not saying I support the policy or that I think it will achieve its goals if adopted. I’m actually neutral on the policy if not slightly opposed. (Speaking strictly as an individual community member and not in any way representing ARIN, the ARIN AC, my employer, the united States of America or any other group one may wish to lump me in to)</div><div><br></div><div>However, I simply cannot agree that the policy as written is out of scope no matter how much I question its efficacy or potential for adoption.</div><span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></font></span></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#073763" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">--Abel</font></div><div><span style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><br><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>