[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Fri Jul 28 16:10:59 UTC 2017

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 16:47 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

There is no campaign of disinformation from this side. The earlier part of the video changes nothing about what the community called for nor does it change Alain’s agreement and subsequent reneging on that agreement.

> 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.

Do you then deny that Alain said “Same here”? Short of denying that easily provable fact, your argument here falls short.

> 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.

Hijack? Wow… An attempt was made at proposing a good faith way to move forward. The community expressed significant support for that proposal. If you consider that “hijacking”, then you have some extremely strange ideas regarding a bottom up community driven consensus process under which we are supposed to be operating.

Acting in good faith based on community input is kind of the heart of the process. At least as I understand it. It’s hard to characterize that as “hijacking” in my opinion.
> 
> The link you need is https://youtu.be/XBv44KAgFVQ?t=24531 <https://youtu.be/XBv44KAgFVQ?t=24531>

Indeed, this is a good link… You make it clear that you realize that this policy proposal isn’t really going anywhere. 

You make it clear in this link that it is necessary to work with the other policy authors to come up with a common problem statement. Alain also acknowledges that there may be no need for either of these proposals. Alain suggests using the emergency process AFTER coming up with a common problem statement to bypass the need to bring the policy proposal to another meeting, but clearly that didn’t happen.

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

Not exactly… Ish points out that the proposal has been overtaken by events and needs to be updated to reflect the current reality.

> 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.

There is never an emergency which justifies ratifying a policy which does not have community consensus. The sustained valid objections to this proposal make it quite clear that there is no consensus for the current state of this policy proposal.

As such, I think it is absurd to suggest applying the emergency process in 3.6 to this policy in its current state since it neither matches current reality, nor does it have the consensus of the community.

Owen

> 
> 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:/>
> http://www.wacren.net <http://www.wacren.net/>
> 
>  <http:/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170728/3718b73c/attachment-0001.html>