[rpd] Inbound Policy

[Jackson Muthili]

I before wrote here that I am always in principle siding with most of
your arguments.

It is the manner in which your arguments are put across that comes
across as disrespectful and divisive.

And when dealing with a community of different shades of skin color,
languages, cultures and levels of exposure to our ecosystem, you need
to be mindful that the way you argue, not the substance of your
argument, is what mostly drives the point home.


On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Jackson,
>
> Let me now respond because I had a feeling that was coming, and I have
> thought long and hard about how I would respond to that.
>
> Firstly, I do not agree – the positions I have taken on this list – if you
> go back and read – are always backed very carefully by substantiation,
> numbers, figures, and yes, my own interpretation of the data. The fact is –
> there are many that follow what I say because of that substantiation – and I
> have always said to everyone – if you wish to argue a point with me, I
> welcome the debate – but dispute the figures and the facts and the
> substantiation of what I am saying, do not dispute the man. What I have done
> is lobbied very hard for the positions I have taken on the lists where I am
> present and a regular. People there may have seen the positions I have taken
> and chosen to take those positions, but I have never, ever, gone out and
> said, support this position without understanding it.
>
> If you read the emails I have sent to various lists endorsing candidates –
> or the emails I have sent endorsing policies – in every one I have said,
> these are my positions, clearly explained – if you support them, vote that
> way, if you don’t that’s ok – but still get out there and vote your
> conscience. If you disagree with me – argue with me – but argue the facts.
>
> That is not the same thing as regionalization and blind block support, it
> just happens though that the people I have conversing to and lobbying for my
> positions agree with the *substantiated* positions I have taken. Yes, I have
> published figures openly that show the financial good standing positions of
> various regions – its public data – it may not be pretty to read – but its
> factual and it needs to be addressed. Yes, I have published data with
> regards to the IP space in various parts of the continent – again, public
> data, again, things that need to be considered and thought about. Yes, I
> have published data about the allocation statistics as compared by country
> and region, again, public data that needs to be discussed.
>
> What I have not done – is advocated a position based on who wrote a policy,
> where they are from, the language they speak, or any other such detail – and
> I challenge anyone who disputes this to provide substantiated evidence.
>
> What I have never done – is gone to the microphone to take a position
> against a script that I did not understand – I have been able to argue with
> and substantiate the position – even if people don’t agree with them – and I
> have said to every person I have ever lobbied to support or not support to
> take their positions from a position of understanding. I have explained my
> views, and told them to read the policies and understand the positions they
> are going to take.
>
> I understand that when positions are taken sometimes those positions are
> influenced by the view of a market from a perspective, we have very diverse
> markets, we have very diverse points of view driven by the dynamics in those
> markets, and I have no problem with that. What worries me though is when I
> see people advocating positions that when questioned on, they cannot explain
> their own position. I worry when I stand behind someone at the microphone
> and they are holding a notebook and giving something to the author of a
> policy, which is reading word for word from an email sent to him by the
> author himself. I worry about the blatant politicization of policy as seen
> by a large segment of the PDP community wearing shirts that make
> inflammatory claims about their smooth transition to ipv6 being opposed –
> which is an unsubstantiated accusation that is sensationalist at best.
>
> I have long argued that in the board space, this is political – it’s an
> election – there is politics involved. There is lobbying, there are
> preferential candidate’s dependent on the view of the electorate, there is
> gathering of support from regions of support – I get that – that’s politics
> – it occurs worldwide and its part of any elective process (and I don’t have
> an objection to it, let democracy reign).
>
> However – once we walk into the policy forum, where policies affect all of
> us, where a policy binds the whole community, I argue there that anyone who
> wishes to argue a policy should be arguing from the perspective of the
> policy and not the regional point of view, and arguing it from a holistic
> perspective. That in my opinion is not happening. If people are going to
> take a position, at the very least, take your own position from a position
> on the policy itself – not the authors, not where the authors live, or the
> language the policy was written in.
>
> At this point – I am refraining from giving specific examples of the
> behavior that I have seen – and I will continue to do so unless I have a
> good reason to so – since I do not wish to turn this into another person on
> person, finger pointing blaim game. I believe that myself, and every single
> active person in this community at some point has been guilty of this to a
> lesser or larger degree – and we need to deal with this in a holistic sense
> – but we cannot deal with it unless we talk about it – so, in conclusion, I
> never claimed to be perfect or not to have made mistakes, however, I do say,
> we have to fix this. I will also say – the positions I have taken have been
> substantiated – and its possible people may not agree with my interpretation
> of the data, and that’s ok – but then lets argue the facts and the
> interpretation – not the person.
>
>
> Andrew
>
> On 06/12/2016, 10:44, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote,
>
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Firstly – I write what I say below in my own capacity – and PURELY my own
>> capacity. What follows is not stated as fact – it is stated as
>> observations
>> and as it is stated as my own beliefs, which I hope are not accurate, and
>> I
>> am (extremely) open to being PROVED wrong.
>>
>> You know – I watched that inbound transfer policy fail – and to be honest
>> I
>> expected as much – because let me say it like it is – I do not believe
>> that
>> the people who stood against the policy stood against the policy itself –
>> I
>> believe this was very much a case of what was described by Chris and Jan
>> at
>> the microphone at the end of the meeting. It seems to be stances are taken
>> against the regions the policies come from or the people who author the
>> policies. Until we fix the blatant regional splits in the policy process –
>> we will not come right.
>
>
> Indeed No conceivable explanation why such a proposal could fail apart
> from above.
>
> It seems to me that these regional splits were started by you Andrew.
> And some of your actions tend to continue championing these splits
> unfortunately.
>
> You may need to be part of the effort to fix the issues you created.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely
> by Mimecast.
> For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
> ________________________________