[rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

[Andrew Alston]

Arnaud!  Thank you!

I was kinda so hoping someone would go here…

So, lets now talk about this and address the big elephant in the room.

Rough Consensus is contra-indicated by sustained and valid objection.  Now, let’s look at the current situation


a.)     There are two policies on the floor that directly contradict each other – and in effect serve as objection to each other

b.)    Both policies are entirely valid and entirely appropriate in nature

c.)     The objections stated to the current policy by Owen, myself and others on this list and on the floor have not been addressed – they have not changed – they are still valid – and they are sustained and not being withdrawn

d.)    The co-authors of both policies have chosen not to withdraw their policies – because both have sustained and entirely valid objections to the alternative policy.

Therefore – by your own email, *NEITHER* policy can pass at the moment – because they diametrically oppose each other with little synergy and act as a wall against each other.

Further to this – Just because the objections coming from people like myself, Owen, Mark, the rest of my co-authors and everyone else have remained unchanged and we remain unmoved, does not negate their validity in any way shape or form.  In fact, it forms the very definition of sustained.

So by your own email below – there could not have been consensus – unless you claim that for some reason, the objections raised on the floor and on this list are invalid and not applicable – in which case the rebuttal to those objections needs to be factually backed up with hard data.  It cannot be based on emotion, it cannot be based on hearsay, it cannot be supposition without foundation.  To clear the objections without directly addressing them, means rebutting them with empirical evidence, something that clearly, the objectors who *sustain* their objections have not seen, because if they had, their stance would have shifted based on such evidence, that’s just logic.

Thank you for making the case.

My objection to the policy stands – it stands in the un-rebutted statements I made at the microphone, it stands as the un-rebutted comments I have made on this list, and it stands in the form of an entirely valid policy proposal.

As a note – my co-authors and myself will be publishing a revision to our policy shortly to take into account various comments we have received both on and off list – I hope to have that out by Friday.

Thanks

Andrew

From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com]
Sent: 09 November 2016 23:27
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>; christianbope <christianbope at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management


Huuuum ! Mr Alston,

How are the “valid and sustained objections” shown in the video ? lack of  “rough consensus” is not determined by  number of objections, nor by number of support.

Regards

Arnaud

Le 8 nov. 2016 19:36, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> a écrit :
Christian,

Position 4:09:50 in the recording of Gaborone June 8th 2016 as found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6UNQnrqcs

I quote – “Thanks authors – so we did not declare consensus on this policy proposal and it will be back to the mailing list for further discussion and maybe amendment”

I also strongly suggest you look at the consensus call on the floor itself in the show of hands – which is not a vote but it is an indicator.  While they do not show in the video the hands of those who said supported with amendment – they do show the show of hands for those completely opposed, and there were a fair number of them.

Since consensus is defined by a lack of valid and sustained objection, consensus was clearly NOT reached on the floor.

Andrew

From: Bope Domilongo Christian [mailto:christianbope at gmail.com<mailto:christianbope at gmail.com>]
Sent: 08 November 2016 19:54
To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Summary of proposals: IPv4 Runout Management

+1
Indeed the community at large reach a rough consensus at Gabarone, Botswana and recommend minor update which have been incorporated by the authors. This is the time for the P-co Chair to call for the rough consensus.
[speaking on my own capacity]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161109/279596fa/attachment-0001.html>