[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Fri Jul 28 05:50:46 UTC 2017

Omo,

You know, when I was a child, one of the things I was taught, was that the first step to finding common ground, was to find at least one positive thing about the person you are attempting to find such ground with.  Well, I have to say, I am deeply impressed by your grasp of obfuscation of facts and your ability to use semantics to obscure arguments.

  1.  Who offered to withdraw first or work together first is immaterial – the authors of one proposal offered a mutual withdrawal – Alain specifically agreed to that mutual withdrawal – clear as day – at around 07:27:30 on that video – its unambiguous and its crystal clear.
  2.  Your talk of hijacking of your offer to work together is telling, because it seems to indicate to me that the only reason for blocking the withdrawal is because rather than seeking common ground and working together, your pride took a hit, because you needed to be the man, under some strange not-invented-here-so-must-oppose viewpoint, despite the fact that the community requested a mutual withdrawal – and we are meant to be doing what we do for the community.
  3.  For one with such an amazing grasp of semantics and the ability to twist language to alternative realities, I find it beyond comprehension that the definition of rough consensus escapes you.  Section 3.6 does not allow a policy to pass without rough consensus – and right now – as we stand – can you please, with all the power of English manipulation you have, explain to me, how under the definition of rough consensus, with the community having demanded requested a withdrawal, and with that issue, which stands as a very clear and sustained objection to the policy, how you can find consensus under the definition.
  4.  There are multiple other issues that were raised about this policy – and that have *NEVER* been responded to, or addressed.  Some of them exist in that video, some on this email list.  Again, the definition of rough consensus is that *EVERY* issue has to be addressed – or the individual raising the issue has to specifically withdraw it.  When I say addressed btw, I don’t mean necessarily solved, I mean, spoken to, and dealt with.  Through all the versions of the policy, issued raised right back at the beginning that have not been addressed by changes – or have not been dealt with – stand sustained – and therefore – there is no consensus.
  5.  For the record – I withdraw *NONE* of the objections I have raised against this policy – they are sustained – and many of them have not been dealt with.

I must say though – I’m a little disappointed – I was wondering about the alternative facts that would be presented to dispute objective fact recorded on video.  I really thought it would be a little more creative than “omg we offered to work together first and our idea got hijacked, it wasn’t invented here”.

Andrew

From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net]
Sent: 28 July 2017 02:48
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Community,

The video on the SL-BIS presentation starts before the 7th minute and I am sure Owen has watched but he will ignore as it does not fit with his campaign of disinformation.

I spoke for my co-authors on the day and I made the offer to work with the other authors on their behalf.   Alain buttressed this when he spoke.

The attempt to hijack this offer as you see later in the video in no way suggests that we offered to withdraw.   I started speaking at 06:49 for anyone who cares for the truth amidst the noise that is being peddled to confuse the situation.

The link you need is https://youtu.be/XBv44KAgFVQ?t=24531<https://youtu.be/XBv44KAgFVQ?t=24531>

Co-Chairs,

Ish raises a point that we highlighted in our statement after Nairobi.   Time has run out for this policy.

If ratifying a policy when the matter it deals with is no longer valid is not considered an emergency,  I struggle to imagine what sort of situation CPM3.6 refers to.

Best wishes
Omo

On 27 July 2017 at 18:28, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 02:18 , ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net<mailto:aalain at trstech.net>> wrote:
>
>
>> On 26 Jul 2017, at 22:16, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

--
Omo Oaiya
CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224
Skype: kodion
http://www.wacren.net<http://www.wacren.net>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170728/b6e16953/attachment-0001.html>