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 18:51:49 UTC 2016

Jackson actually, we have made attempts. I would rather not publish private correspondence but will if need be.

There have been multiple emails and phone calls and a meeting with the co chair as well. Dewole can confirm this.

There was also an initial meeting with the authors of both policies in Gaborone.

Again, we are open to working


Get Outlook for iOS<>

From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at>
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 8:29:27 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList.
Subject: Re: [rpd] Statement from the authors of Soft Landing Overhall (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)

You are sounding like a crybaby and it is not funny.

Jokes aside:-

> 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.

The 'wish' in my observation was  "work together towards mutually
acceptable policy" and NOT "withdraw policies and work together
towards mutually acceptable policy".

You seem the one that put the condition of both to withdraw as the
only way to work with others. When you are hoping to collaborate out
of impasse and you start by setting such conditions - you are going to
hit a wall. You are already placing yourself superior ab-initio.


> 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.

Have you made an attempt to reach out to the other party again to
explore other options to collaborate? Don't you think that your "I
either win or you lose" approach here is already divisive? Are you
moving forward fronting the community's interest?

> 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.

A frivolous and small-minded remark IMO.
 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