<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 15 Dec 2018, at 03:39, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus.</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Owen,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Your spirited defence of Larus and the revelation that you have been employed by same organisation piqued my interest so I reviewed the record as you suggested. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Anyone is allowed to change their minds. The records show that you initially supported the proposal, changed your position along the line, and became vehemently opposed to it thereafter. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Here is what I found in the archives:</div><div class=""><br class="">18 May 2016 - v1.0 of the proposal was submitted</div><div class="">24 May 2016 - You point to ARIN review policy when there are comments about implementation impact on AFRINIC and queries if any other RIR had done this before.<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Owen DeLong <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">owen at delong.com</a>> wrote:
><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> On May 23, 2016, at 11:30 , Benjamin Eshun <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">beshun at garnet.edu.gh</a>> wrote:
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> Comments are in line....
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Nishal Goburdhan <
</i>><i class=""> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">nishal at controlfreak.co.za</a>> wrote:
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> ok, so using that logic, can is there another RIR that has successfully
</i>>><i class=""> shown, how this can be done? the case across the world, seems to be that
</i>>><i class=""> this is too much effort, for too little gain. so, honestly, unless there’s
</i>>><i class=""> some magician that can show how/why this is likely to be different in
</i>>><i class=""> africa, it’s reasonable to assume that this is also going to be the case
</i>>><i class=""> here.
</i>>><i class=""> as a paying member, i want afrinic - using its limited resources - to
</i>>><i class=""> prioritise that, which will take us forward.
</i>>><i class="">
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> I refer you to ARIN NRPM section 12.
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> Owen</i></pre></blockquote><div class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005484.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005484.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">At this time, you appear to be positively disposed to the proposal and I find email below where you actually express your support when there seems to be a misunderstanding of your “IPv4 is dead” claim. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">From the text, it even seems that I may have missed other mails supporting for the policy.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">><i class=""> On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">owen at delong.com</a>> wrote:
</i>><i class=""> </i><i class="">
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> I’ve already expressed support for this policy. I’ve already expressed support for keeping AfriNIC resources for Africa.
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> I’ve done so on numerous occasions.
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make to me.
</i>><i class=""> </i><br class=""></pre></blockquote><div class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005530.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005530.html</a></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Fast-forward a year later to July 2017, by which time the proposal has reached last call for the first time. It is now at v3.0 and the tone of your messages begin to change up to the point that I feel you are obstructing the Co-chairs and adding to the confusion.</div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><pre style="font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;" class="">On 10 July 2017 at 23:18, Owen DeLong <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" class="">owen at delong.com</a>> wrote:
><i class=""> Sami,
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> The final legal feedback notwithstanding, I think there has been more than
</i>><i class=""> enough negative feedback in this last call to make it quite clear that this
</i>><i class=""> policy does NOT have consensus at this time and I urge the co-chairs to
</i>><i class=""> remand it to the authors and the list for further refinement or abandonment
</i>><i class=""> rather than leaving it in last call status. There is no reason for last
</i>><i class=""> call to be maintained beyond the point where clearly the policy has no
</i>><i class=""> consensus as is and will need substantial revision. It only confuses the
</i>><i class=""> community.
</i>><i class="">
</i>><i class=""> Owen
</i>></pre></blockquote><div class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007169.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007169.html</a></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">By now, you are very vocal and have issues with the proposal you had previously supported and improved with community input to reach last call at v3.0. You become a champion for its opposition.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 11 Jul 2017, at 18:39, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I am not opposed to the concept of resource reviews… In fact, the policy in section 12 of the ARIN NRPM to which you refer below was originally proposed and authored by yours truly and subsequently modified by a group of people prior to becoming ARIN policy.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I fully support the idea, the concept, and a proper implementation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, the dichotomy between the above idea of a proper implementation and what is proposed in AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 is so severe that many people have raised substantive objections.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What I find most interesting about this is that despite the repeated raising of these same objections to this proposal, the proponents choose to hand waive, point to policies at other RIRs (which, btw, lack the very flaws being pointed out in this proposal) and attempt to shout down the opposition without actually making any indication that the objections have been considered, let alone any effort to actually address said objections.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007185.html" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007185.html</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div><div class="">It is difficult to understand your failure to contribute to the proposal so it meets your nebulous idea of a “proper implementation” considering your experience with the ARIN proposal. The proposal kept on evolving nonetheless, up to v6.0, addressing valid objections and comments from legal and staff. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div>In recent discussions, you disclosed (and repeated) that you have worked for Larus (who vigorously opposes the proposal and has done from inception) but claim that this does not influence your position. According to you, this Larus work started just before the Dakar meeting in April 2018 and your opposition predates your employment. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Only you and Larus know exactly when you started but the evidence in the archives show that you only became diametrically opposed to the policy midstream and your claim of opposition from the start is untrue. I also recall challenging another of your contradictory claims in the past and see a pattern here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">To the PDWG and Co-Chairs,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Given the *actual* sequence of events in the archives, how credible is Owen DeLong’s opposition to the review proposal and call for its withdrawal? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On a broader note, how do we process such contributions in general in the PDP, from Owen or anyone else, now and in the future, if we cannot trust their motivation?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Omo</div></body></html>