[rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Mon Dec 4 06:28:26 UTC 2017

Christian –

Why would people want to sign up to this list?

So they can be called Neo-Colonialists when they disagree?  So they can be insulted?  So they be attacked verballed and abused?  So that when that happens they can watch as the code of conduct on the list is never enforced and it happens time and time and time again?  So they can be spammed my messages that have nothing to do with policy and are often not based in any objective fact?

I can fully understand why people stay away from this list – and further more – technical people subscribe to the list – these policies have business impact – and if you think that the C Level executives who are signing these documents are going to be on this list – think again – they rely on their technical people to report to them and give them the facts – they rely on the information from outside.  Very often, those technical people do not have the authority to sign a statement like that – however, the executives want the statement made.  Let them make it – it is them that are paying AfriNIC’s membership fees which let AfriNIC continue to exist

Andrew

From: Christian Ahiauzu [mailto:christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng]
Sent: 04 December 2017 00:49
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Hi Andrew,

On Dec 3, 2017 5:59 AM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> On the contrary Badru,
>
> They have chosen to send their thoughts to the RPD - they are following the process - and having their voice heard on the policy list.
>

Yes. They are having their voice heard on the RPD, but the question is, if they haven't signed up on the RPD, are they hearing other peoples voices?

Remember, you are either participating on the RPD, or at the face to face meeting which is the climax of the PDP process. I wonder if these "ISPs" have been following the discussion on the list, and how the decisions where taken. I have no problem with someone protesting or appealing the decision of the co-chairs. However, they should give themselves the benefit of the doubt and participate in the processes that climaxed to the final rough consensus.

> What the pdp says is that thoughts should be heard on the list - or at the microphone - nowhere does it state that communication to the list cannot be formal - nowhere does it state it cannot be in a pdf - nowhere does it state that it cannot be signed.
>
> The process is being followed - the communication is via the RPD list - and if this violates the process please can someone point to chapter and verse as to where in the process?  Once I have it I will go back to the larger block and explain to them that Afrinic’s process has decided to try and implement a policy that could damage their businesses and this industry while at the same time refusing to let them be heard on the issue - in the forum they were meant to be heard in - because they chose to do it via a signed letter rather than get abused on a list with vague statements of Neo-colonialism and such.
>

Going back to a "larger group" and explaining to them things, may not be the right way to go. Why should they not hear for themselves and judge for themselves. What is wrong with them signing up for a list and participating for themselves. With all due respect, I really think they should sign up on the List and even if they wish to put up a signed document, they are free to do so. My personal opinion please.

> Be curious to see how that plays out
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
> ________________________________
> From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 6:56:04 AM
> To: Andrew Alston
> Cc: Alan Barrett; Afrinic RPD
>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy
>
> Since these are expressions and the authors have chosen to use a channel out of the RPD then other members could see it as noise.
> Appreciate and note the expressions however continue with information and discussion in the RPD.
>
> Let’s not innovate creative channels.  There processes to introduce change if members wish to introduce petitions.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 Dec 2017, at 03:24, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing that *requires* it – there is also nothing that forbids it.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a discussion in various forums about how to handle this – and various ISP’s have opted to rather sign the petition document and have to forwarded to the list by a single individual – they wish to partake but do not wish to put up with the noise on this list, so, they are choosing to express their views in their own way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since each of them is a paying member, and each of them is impacted by policy, I believe they should be free to express their views in any way they wish, and if that is by signing a petition document and having someone else send it through to the list, I hardly see a reason to stop it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net<mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net>]
>> Sent: 02 December 2017 11:37
>> To: Afrinic RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 1 Dec 2017, at 15:45, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please see attached.
>> >
>> > By agreement I will be sending these signed documents through as they come in from the various parties.
>>
>> I don’t know what agreement you mean.
>>
>> I am not aware of anything in the policy development process or the appeal process that requires signed documents similar to those I have seen in the past day or so. If people have objections to a policy proposal, I would suggest that they follow the existing process and make their comments in the RPD mailing list.
>>
>> Alan Barrett
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171204/97b84f79/attachment-0001.html>