[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 02:18 , ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 26 Jul 2017, at 22:16, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> […….]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Andrew takes the title now because he doesnt believe in any form of softlanding policy amendment beyond the status quo even though he authored a softlanding-overhaul policy proposal and then went on to withdraw it.
>> 
>> He offered a less destructive alternative to this proposal as an attempt at a compromise that might serve the community. When the community requested and authors of both proposals agreed to withdraw their respective proposals, he acted in good faith to withdraw that proposal assuming that the authors of this proposal would do likewise based on their word. Sadly, the authors of this proposal did not follow through on that commitment and we find ourselves here with this proposal still standing despite community opposition and with you somehow claiming that the good faith withdrawal of the other proposal and the failure to act in good faith by the authors here somehow constitutes merit for this proposal.
> 
> We have responded to this many times, but you keep playing  it. So let me say it again.
> 
> 1- there was no request from community about withdrawal of the 2 proposals

Video linked in Andrew’s message disputes this. CEO is also part of the community and called for exactly this.
Following the CEO’s request, there was significant applause supporting his position which I take to be the community echoing this request from CEO.
The rest proceeds as stated in Andrew’s blow-by-blow.

> 2- during AFRINIC-25 meeting in Mauritius, Authors of the SL-bis decided after the SL-overhaul was presented to not waste the working time by presenting and defending SL-bis and offered to work with the authors of the SL-overhaul and co-chairs to seek a common ground.

Which is a bad-faith mutation of what was agreed in public during the PDWG meeting in Mauritius.

Alain, you yourself said “SAME HERE” in response to Andrew’s statement that he and his co-authors were prepared to engage in mutual withdrawl. 

Admittedly, Omo almost immediately stepped up and denied this. Nonetheless, the agreement was made by you and then broken.

> 3- withdrawal of the 2 proposals was raised by the authors of the SL-overhaul, but never agreed  by the 2 parties as pre-conditions.

The claim of pre-condition is invented by Omo. Mutual withdrawl was a proposed first step towards collaboration. Mutual withdrawal was the only reasonable first step under the circumstances because without it, there’s no good faith and no trust. This gets in the way of actual collaboration. The call for mutual withdrawal was strong and echoed by both the Chair of the Board and in line with the comments made by the CEO.

Yes, it was the authors of the superior SL-overhaul policy that first proposed mutual withdrawl, but, you, Alain, did agree to it and then Omo reneged.

Then, despite this grand show of bad faith by Omo and your final reneging on your earlier agreement, Andrew still acts in good faith and withdraws his proposal as a final gesture towards conciliation.

> 4- we all know what happen after Mauritius with efforts and attempts made by co-chairs and authors of SL-bis…

Yes… The authors of SL-bis continue to act in bad faith and the policy continues to lack consensus of the community.

> Hope this clarifies and closes this rhetoric 

Well, it certainly presents an interesting alternative reality, but the record supports what you refer to as “rhetoric”.

Just because they are inconvenient to your side, does not mean that the facts will simply go away if you deny them often enough or long enough.

One of my favorite quotes is at 7:38:08 where you say “I don’t want to make people happy.”

So, now that the documented facts have been plainly presented, can we stop the rhetoric about SL-bis and perhaps even move on with the authors starting to work in good faith with the community going forward?

Owen