[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

[Andrew Alston]

Jackson,

>Most important text for Andrew: The Working Group Chair(s) shall
>evaluate the feedback received during the Public Policy Meeting and
>during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved.

- 100% agreed this is important, but let us look closely at the wording,
the feedback is evaluated based on both the on the floor AND the mailing
list and evaluated in a combined manner.  At current we have 5 or so
people on this list objecting when in comparison to the 60+ votes for in
the room.  This is also kind of important.  But consensus is not purely
about majority and I acknowledge that.

>
>So feedback receive during last call is IMPORTANT to determine
>consensus finally by the chairs.

- Of course it is, however, part of consensus process is that we seek a
common goal and a common outcome.  As I stated, it is about debate where
we seek to address problems with a proposal rather than rejecting it out
of hand.  As such, questions are asked, answers are given and if the
answers are not satisfactory, further questions that directly address the
answers given should be asked, until such a point where either the authors
acknowledge that they cannot answer specific questions and as such have
issues that need wording changes, or those who are objecting and asking
the questions find that their questions have been adequately addressed.
However, objecting to a proposal without an analysis of the answers given
and without asking questions that directly relate to the answers given is
not the process through which consensus is sort.  Again, I repeat,
questions have been asked and answers have been given, and again, I ask
those that are objecting to please review those answers and should they
not be satisfactory to question the answers as stated.  Outright rejection
of any position is not part of the process, as it does not seek to find
common ground.  Modification of something without adequate reasoning and
without debating the answers given and addressing each point is not part
of the process, as it will never lead to finding common ground.  Ruling on
consensus by a member of the community while the last call period is still
open, without the chairs full and unequivocable evaluation of all comments
and feedback received is not part of the process, as such, your ruling
that there is no consensus as you seem to be trying to state is invalid.

>Andrew your agreement with community to approve while ignoring last
>call discussion contravene PDP and is null and void.

I am in no way ignoring last call discussion, I am asking that protocol be
observed and the answers to the questions raised either be questioned on
the merits and refuted based on what was said, or the questions be
acknowledged as answered.  Either of these options I would be fine with,
but as of yet I still have not seen the answers I have given to specific
technically founded objections addressed, and as such, I believe it is
premature to declare that no common ground can be found and we need a
major rewrite.  Objection without substantiation and without affording the
opportunity to evaluate the answers to any objections is dogmatic and not
constructive, and in my opinion carries little weight.

Andrew

>
>Jack
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> If you look at all my posts you will find that though i have clearly
>>> stated that I'm not in support I'm asking us to think deeper and wider
>>>at
>>> what areas can make this proposal palatable to the whole community.
>>
>> I am fully aware that you are not in support.  I am also however fully
>>aware
>> that when this policy was put before the floor in the face to face
>>meeting,
>> we had a limited number of objections, and the floor requested 2
>>changes.
>> Both of which have been made, and a possible third negotiation point on
>>the
>> ratio.  When committing to making those changes, there were no
>>objections.
>> Now, I 100% acknowledge that in last call anyone has the right to change
>> positions and consensus may not be reached in the event of a large
>>number of
>> people changing those positions.  However, based on simple pure numbers
>>of
>> people on this list posting, and based on the numbers in that room who
>>voted
>> in favour of this policy, I still believe that we should follow what was
>> agreed in that meeting to its conclusion, and if that conclusion is
>>that the
>> community has shifted position from what was in that room, then we can
>> revisit the rest of the policy with no issues in my mind, but to do
>> otherwise is to ignore the expressed will in that room and as a
>>community
>> based organisation I do not feel that we should do that.  Be you
>>posting in
>> your individual capacity or as chair of the board, I simply ask that you
>> respect the process and respect the agreements that were reached in that
>> room.
>>
>>> From an AfriNIC point of view the questions that need to be asked
>>> regardless of floor consensus i believe would be as follows
>>
>>> What is the effect of this proposal on the sustainability of AfriNIC
>>>???
>>> Does the proposal enable Fair and Impartial Number Resource
>>>Administration
>>> for the whole community ??
>>> Is the proposal Technically Sound and in line with generally acceptable
>>> practice  ??
>>
>> Badru, sorry, I have to stop you here.  AfriNIC by the process, is
>>requested
>> to perform an analysis on each and every proposal before it reaches the
>> floor.  It was done, the staff analysis was online and available for
>>all to
>> see.  Are you telling me that AfriNIC failed to do its duty to this
>> community and perform that function as it was meant to do, and now,
>>during
>> last call, suddenly wants to redo the analysis that was put before the
>> community because the job was not done sufficiently the first time?
>>
>>> My issue is that we all take one of two positions.  we either fight the
>>> proposal or blindly support.  I want us to look for the third
>>>alternative.
>>> Look at some of the points raised by members and see how we can take
>>>all
>>> points and create a proposal even better than the original proposal.
>>
>> And my issue is that at the meeting we agreed to certain changes, and
>>were
>> willing to make them.  Before the meeting, for almost 6 months, this
>>call
>> was on the list and was discussed EXTENSIVELY if you go back and look
>>at the
>> archives, and where changes were requested they were made and answered.
>> The
>> proposal went to the floor where a larger number of people voted in
>>favour
>> for this policy than the entire number of people who have posted on this
>> list in 2013 (Yes, I checked), and now what you are asking is that we
>> violate the defined AfriNIC process and ignore the will of those on the
>> floor that this go to last call with the changes requested and instead
>>start
>> looking at a third option at this late stage.  As I have said, once the
>>last
>> call is finalised, I have no problem if the policy does not pass
>>consensus
>> looking at further major changes, but I am not prepared to make such
>>changes
>> that would endanger the last call as was agreed to with the community.
>>
>>> if you saw the list sent out you will see that in Uganda only RENU
>>>seems
>>> to have a resource i would like more HEI's in my country to have the
>>> resources but would not like to have this at the expense of breaking
>>>the
>>> current system.
>>> I do not think it is in the spirit of the internet and it's policies.
>>
>> You make statements like this, yet I have read your arguments and I have
>> responded to each and every one of them.  I have looked at the financial
>> arguments, and I have responded with figures and facts based on
>>AfriNIC's
>> own publications at the meeting.  You have not responded to the email
>>or the
>> numbers contained therein.  I have looked at the issue raised where you
>> claimed that it would allow Universities to become ISP's and it has been
>> responded to and demonstrated that neither user classification or
>>current
>> policy would allow for this to happen, yet you have not withdrawn that
>> objection.  I have looked at the issue where you say that a University
>>could
>> export their space and again, because the policy classifies
>>Universities as
>> end users, it has been pointed out that this could not happen.  Each
>> objection you have raised has been responded to very carefully, and
>>while
>> you talk about us not supporting blindly, I ask that you do not take the
>> position where you are determined to oppose without considering the
>>merits
>> of the arguments contained in the answers to the questioned you raised,
>> since in no case when provided an answer that categorically proves that
>>a
>> question poses a hypothetical that is inaccurate have you been willing
>>to
>> withdraw from the particular question.
>>
>>> So all I'm asking once again is that with a bit of humility and all
>>>your
>>> technical and community spirits lets step back look at the policy in
>>>its
>>> entirety and openly find that third alternative that will bring the
>>> community together.
>>
>> And again I state, should the policy not pass last call, I am more than
>> happy to make major revisions.  However, I will respect the process, the
>> demonstrated will of the community and the vast amounts of discussion
>>had on
>> this policy since its inception and I wish to see this policy through
>>to the
>> end of last call in the form that was agreed as per the process at the
>>face
>> to face meeting, bar minor changes as agreed to in that meeting.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Badru, I would oppose these changes in the last call period (Other than
>>the
>> ratio, which we have always openly stated is a point for further
>> negotiations and hence I believe that can be changed within the
>>confines of
>> last call)
>>
>> We took a policy to the floor for consensus, the consensus was granted,
>>and
>> the agreement from the floor was that THAT policy  with modifications as
>> requested on the floor go to last call.
>>
>> To change the policy to add additional elements would not be what we had
>> agreed with the community in that room, and that was to table what was
>>put
>> before them.  We have to act within the policy and within the remit
>>granted
>> to us by the floor in Zambia, that is how the process is designed and
>>how it
>> is meant to work.  Further changes to the policy would have to go back
>>to
>> the floor at a subsequent meeting, and to change the policy and not
>>proceed
>> to last call and create a delay like that after committing in front of
>>the
>> community to taking the policy to last call with the changes they
>>requested
>> would in my view be disingenuous.  If this policy does not pass last
>>call
>> then we can relook at that then.
>>
>> I would ask that you, as Chairman of Afrinic, respect the Afrinic
>>process as
>> defined.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug>
>> Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 5:02 PM
>> To: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
>>
>> So sunday
>>
>> Are we prepared to change other areas like bring back some level of
>>network
>> justification.  Some how re-align with current practice as opposed to
>> breaking all current practice ???
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Badru, This is progress.
>> Thank you Badru. Perhaps we should return to the initial proposal of 3:1
>> before the invention of photoptab.
>> Mme Maye, what sayest thou?
>> Sunday.
>> On 26 Jun 2013 15:05, "Badru Ntege" <ntegeb at one2net.co.ug> wrote:
>>>
>>> Though totally not in support of the policy of allocating by numbers.
>>>If
>>> this can make us start looking at this policy to make it more
>>>acceptable
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  > ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity;
>>> This statement has been addressed over and over. Indeed it cares more
>>>for
>>> the other regions with lower entry barrier. We can lower the ratio to
>>>3:1,
>>> 2:1 even 0.5:1 if you will .... but you are not even proposing
>>>anything!!
>>>
>>>
>>> I would propose  2:1  and would also be more stringent in that the
>>>entity
>>> must have infrastructure in place and also an existing or planned
>>>uplink to
>>> the internet within 2 months of allocation.
>>>
>>> Also i would expect stricter due diligence since we are proposing very
>>> subjective measures and criteria for allocation.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>>