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)

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Mon Dec 12 17:12:29 UTC 2016

Hi Noah,

The issue here is that to work together requires mutual trust and a willingness to work together.  That requires an action of good faith on both sides.  We do not wish to digress into the past and the motivations behind either policy, as we do not feel it would be productive.  The community requested something of both sets of authors, which we feel both sets of authors are obliged to comply with in an act of good faith.  The community also requested that we work together, we believe that is predicted on mutual trust and everyone acting in good faith, which we feel has not been fulfilled by one side (specifically one individual).

Hence – we are looking to take a far wider approach, and unlike the approach taken by EITHER set of authors to this point, we are going to consult and take ideas from all segments of the community before we start drafting at all – and hence we welcome co-authors etc.  At the initial point of authorship of both policies, both policies were proposals before consultation with the wider community, we wish to reverse that now, and see if we can get the understandings first, and see if it is possible to bring them all together and THEN draft from a point of view of consensus.



From: Noah <noah at>
Date: Monday, 12 December 2016 at 19:38
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Statement from the authors of Soft Landing Overhall (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)

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<mailto:Andrew.Alston at>> wrote:
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 stem.

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<mailto:RPD at>
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
 For more information please visit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list