Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Statement from the authors of Soft Landing Overhall (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)

Noah noah at
Mon Dec 12 16:38:27 UTC 2016

Hi Andrew,

First of all, yes yes yes any one and everyone have the right to propose a
policy proposal.

Having said that, I have watched that video and from what i have seen and
hard from the video, I come to the assumption that the authors of the soft
landing bis policy proposal had not agreed amongst themselves 1st before
deciding to withdraw their policy.

Its seems like there was some sort of community request for folks from both
policies to withdraw them and work on some thing else.

Now I have taken some time to look at the historical timelime of both
policies + their content and it seems to me that Softlanding BIS came first
(submitter 1st ) while Softlanding Overhaul was submited immediately a few
days after as what it seems like a rush rush counter policy to the
softlanding BIS looking the the differences between both.

As such softlanding Overhaul was merely a counter policy imho.

Now when a group of individuals from the community sumits a policy. Its
always wise for the community as a whole to deliberate it on the mailing
list and at policy meetings, and through consesus agree or disagree to it
and or improve it through the same pdp process.

How else are we as a community going to contribute to a discussing two
counter policies. Hence this whole confusion ane wastage of our time.

Yes overhaul folk had the right to submit their own version, but i beg to
ask. What was so difficult for the Authors of the overhaul policy from
participating in improving the softlanding BIS after all policy proposals
are not a competition but rather community proposals that seek community
engagement to the end.

So for me i see the real genesis of the stalemate of both policies being
some members of the community rushing to author and submit counter policies
to other policies they dont seem to agree with instead of participating in
either objecting or improving policy proposals.

Last but not least, what has the individual refusing to agree with you
openly got anything to do with their role at role at ASO/ NRO. We elected
them and gave them that mandate. Give them a break for goodness sake.

PS: Now that Softlanding Overhaul has been withdrawn in good faith. Let us
improve Softlanding BIS instead of wasting time coming up with another new
counter policy with an expanded authorship.

My 2 cents and opinions.


On 12 Dec 2016 6:32 p.m., "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at>

Dear Community Members,

For those of you who were not in the room in Mauritius during the last PDP
session. During the policy meeting there was clear indication from the
community in the room that they wished to see the authors of both
AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01 (Soft Landing Overhaul) and the authors of
AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT03 (IPv4 Soft Landing-bis) withdraw their policies
and then go away and work together to come up with a mutually acceptable
policy, so that the community was not forced to decide between two
competing policies that directly contradicted each other.

We, as authors of AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01 offered a mutual withdrawal as
an act of good faith and stated that we were willing to work together with
the authors of the Soft Landing-BIS proposal to come up with a new policy.
The authors of the Soft Landing-BIS policy clearly indicated from the table
that they were prepared to agree to this.    At that point, we assumed that
the withdrawal would be mutual and we would go away and work on together
for mutual community benefit.  The time then came to go to the microphone
and jointly withdraw.  Unfortunately, one of the authors of Soft
Landing-BIS policy then went to the microphone and reneged on the agreement
that had been publicly made before the community.  It is the impression of
myself and my co-authors that one of the authors of the Soft Landing-BIS
policy had a clear intention to act in good faith, however one of the
authors reneged on the promise to us and the community and hence, this
individual was constrained in what he could do.  At this point, to honor
our commitment to the community, we unilaterally withdrew our policy, and
we stand by that withdrawal.

It should also be stated, at this point that our withdrawal of our policy
was not, and will never be, a withdrawal to our substantial, sustained and
valid objections to many aspects of the Soft Landing-BIS policy.

It is now our contention as the authors of the Overhall policy, that sadly,
working jointly with the authors of the Soft Landing-BIS policy (and in
particular with the individual who reneged on the agreement given to the
community) has now become impossible, since we feel that we, and the
community were lied to.  The video transcripts will clearly demonstrate the
agreement to withdraw both policies, and the change of heart when the time
came to follow through.  We feel that we cannot in good conscience proceed
to drafting a revised version of the policy when the authors of the other
policy can change their mind at the microphone after expressing things to
the community, and we feel that policy authorship must be done in an
atmosphere or mutual trust and respect – and while we were prepared to
explore this, the authors (or one of them in particular) of the Soft
Landing-BIS policy have in essence demonstrated bad faith and a complete
lack of respect to the community we are all part of.

As such, we will be considering our options to put forward a new and
modified policy, and we therefore invite ALL members of the community who
wish to join us in finding a mutually acceptable policy to come forward and
talk to us. Send us your ideas and if you wish, we will expand the
co-author list. We heard the community wish and we acted in that good
faith. We feel we cannot however work with people who turn away from their
words and disregard the community will.

We needed to ensure that the community understand our position and we
assure each and every one of you that we have and will always be working in
our community interest.  We look forward to working with every single one
of you in finding a policy that will be acceptable to all members of this
community, irrespective of size of organization or sector from which you

The authors of the Soft Landing Overhall policy would also be remiss if we
did not express our extreme concern that this community is now represented
at the ASO by an individual who could display such blatant bad faith and
walk away from promises to this community in the manner that was done.

Yours Sincerely

Andrew Alston

Kris Seeburn

Mark Elkins

Michele McCann

John Walubengo

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely
by Mimecast.
For more information please visit

RPD mailing list
RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list