[rpd] Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 17, 2017, at 12:02 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14 Aug 2017 21:17, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> ARIN reserved a /10 for IPv6 transition and a /16 for critical infrastructure. ARIN Has a total of 100.1 /8s (400.4 /10s, so the reservation of a /10 is the equivalent of 0.25% of their total holdings. It’s equal to 25,600.3 /16s, so reservation of a /16 is equal to 0.004% of their total holdings.
> 
> ARIN made no other reservations for new entrants.
> 
> Proportionately, AfriNIC total holdings are 7.23 /8s, so equivalent reservations would be about 1.5 /14s, so let’s call it a /13 for transition and approximately 20 /24s (let’s round up to 32 and call it a /19 for critical infrastructure).
> 
> If such a proposal were on the table in AfriNIC, I would support it. Unfortunately, that’s not what is on the table here. The proposal on the table here is laden with quite a few other unnecessary and harmful restrictions and is focused on stringing out the IPv4 business as usual for small organizations while denying addresses to larger organizations with equivalent or even greater present need.
> 
> I did not agree to adoption of a previous version, I stated that it was less objectional than its predecessor.
> 
> In the mail [1] you wrote among other things and I will quote below your exact words in quotes:
> 
> "I do commend the authors for addressing most of my concerns in redrafting this proposal. 
> I’m still rather unconvinced that the problem statement represents an actual problem to be solved, but I am no longer so opposed to the adoption of the actual policy text." 
> 
> 
> Therefore, when all objections have been given the due attention/addressed and you consent to the results, then what's next?

Sure, but you will notice I chose my words carefully… “Most of my concerns” not all.
I also made it clear that I was unconvinced that the problem needed to be solved.
I stated that I was less opposed, but not completely unopposed.

> IMHO, consensus is achieved when everyone consents to the decision of the group. The decision may not be everyone’s first preference, but is acceptable to all participants.

I did not and still do not consent. Being less opposed is not the same as consenting.

>  
> [1] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006710.html <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006710.html>
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, authors acting in bad faith is the single biggest issue dividing the community. That doesn’t mean I’m advocating it as the only issue, it means I am identifying it as what I perceive to be the single most divisive issue.
> 
> You keep raising the above despite all the explanations and discussions this community had about what happened during AFRINIC-25. I personally wont replay them but I clearly remember in Nairobi two SL proposals were under discussions and SL-BIS was one of them and back to the list for further inputs.
> 
> In anycade are we going to restrain the whole continent from moving on with a proposal to solve problems simply because of what *you* qualify as "bad faith " of the authors of the 1st proposal put on the table to address issues the current softlanding policy poses?
> 
I am not the only one who considers what happened to have been “bad faith”. Others have stated this as well.
> Can we rise above all this in this discourse?
> 
> It is a bit annoying to hear such claims of bad faith from someone who publicly claimed to have authored a policy which was authored by completely someone else in ARIN.
> 
There are two possible reasons for this… One, my memory is not 100% accurate and I made an error (which I freely admit is possible) or two, my memory of contributing to the authorship of the policy is correct, but not well documented (which is equally likely).

In either case, my status as author or my status as supporter equally supports the position I was taking and whether or not I authored the proposal is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Certainly the record is clear that I have authored numerous policy proposals in the ARIN region resulting in a significant portion of current ARIN policy.
> 
> 
> You keep telling me I should let others speak, but I don’t see where I have ever made any effort to prevent anyone from speaking, so I am not sure what your meaning is here. I think it is, perhaps, your back-handed way of attempting to tell me not to speak, but if that is your intent, then say it plain and see where that goes.
> 
> 
> Unless the goal is for you to appear No.1 on traffic rating stats for the RPD list, my call to you here is to consider:
> 
> 1. Collective responsibility in guaranteeing the efficiency of traffic/discussions on the list to allow folks to follow and contribute by looking at the essential few messages and respect of other's opinions.

If you feel I have failed to respect someone else’s opinion, please cite example(s) and I will endeavor to modify my behavior accordingly. However, disagreeing is not inherently disrespect. I believe I have, at all times, respectfully disagreed with the supporters of this policy.

> 2. People in this specific region are not used to the always controversial discussion and we live mostly in hierarchical society. Folks out here want to be given the opportunity to express their "stupid and/or naive" opinions, be hard and understood. Folks here don't speak up in a hostile environments in which someone is playing "Mr know it all”.

Again, you seem to be stating that I have somehow denied people the opportunity to express their opinions by playing “Mr. know it all”. First, I’m not sure beyond having stated my own opinions and knowledge, what I have done that would prevent someone from expressing their opinion. I will note that I have never called anyone’s opinion “stupid” or “naive”. I have on occasion pointed out what I perceive to be likely unintended consequences of policy proposals and/or expressed my qualifications and experience. I do this to provide credibility to my position, not to belittle anyone else.

OTOH, supporters of this policy have repeatedly engaged in ad hominem.

I respectfully welcome everyone’s input and opinion and I will respond as I feel appropriate with support or objection to the merits (or lack) of the proposed policy and not the individual.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170822/0121612c/attachment-0001.html>