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

Wed Dec 6 15:30:51 UTC 2017

Christian,

As others have stated, while this got kicked back to the list as a proper outcome of the last call,
like the Review proposal, this should never have gone to last call in the first place. It was clear
that there was significant sustained objection prior to the declaration of consensus. Said objections
were never addressed in both cases. Thus, neither policy met the definition of rough consensus and
in both cases, the co-chairs erred in declaring consensus.

The first time, an appeal was suggested, but not followed through in the hopes that the co-chairs
would learn from the experience and not make the same mistake again. Now that they have repeated
the same mistake, there is a remaining concern that the co-chairs are not following the PDP and
we hope that the review will get things back on track.

It is vital to the integrity of the process that the co-chairs feel bound by it and that they
not declare consensus where it clearly does not exist. Consensus is not the tyranny of the majority
as many seem to be advocating.

Owen

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 05:55 , Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:
> 
> Lu,
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. But like you noted, the Internet number resources review policy has gone back to the mailing list from the final call status. Meaning, that the process of "checking again" works.
> 
> If we think that the current PDP is flawed, then, it cannot be repaired by an Appeal process. Rather, just like some community members are currently doing, we solve that problem using a policy update or total change of an existing policy. The AfriNIC Policy Development Process BIS, I believe noticed the flawed nature of our PDP and is trying to solve the problems using a policy. If an appeal process was not called, the current objections to the IPv4 Soft Landing -BIS policy might still send it back to the mailing list and its status is stepped down. Now, with the appeal, it will still yield the same result but in a different way. But will this appeal stop other policies from entering into final call "prematurely"?.
> 
> I really think the appeal at this point was not called for, with due respect to all parties involved.
> 
> BR
> Christian.
> 
> On Dec 6, 2017 10:23 AM, "Lu Heng" <h.lu at anytimechinese.com <mailto:h.lu at anytimechinese.com>> wrote:
> Hi Christian:
> 
> Because there is one huge problem need to be fixed here.
> 
> The chair declared consensus on the floor without considering t there are major objections in the mailing list in which was not addressed yet.
> 
> It is not the first time, it happened last time with the review policy as well.(and possibly many other policies that I am not aware of)
> 
> Both review and the soft landing policy, there is ideology difference between community members that just too big to be considered mirror objections.
> 
> Just because some bring more people to the floor does not mean consensus can be reached without addressing major objections.
> 
> Even, theoretically, there is one person ideologically disagree with the policy with a sounding argument, if that disagreement cannot be addressed with agreeable resolution, consensus can not be reached, and that is the very definition of the consensus decision making process.
> 
> If you declaring consensus without considering that one person's ideological difference, you are not reaching consensus, instead, you are bullying that person to ignore the process.
> 
> So this will need to be fixed here in the PDP, or, we will need to change consensus-based to vote based if that can be possible.
> 
> On 6 December 2017 at 10:07, Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng <mailto:christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the board.
> 
> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further  objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal process.
> 
> BR
> Christian.
> 
> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at futureperfect.co.za <mailto:alan at futureperfect.co.za>> wrote:
> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
> 
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za <mailto:alan at futureperfect.co.za>> wrote:
> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I had to look up who the chairs actually are...
> 
> I believe that this page shows: https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg <https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg>
> 
> 1. Dewole Ajao
> 2. Sami Salih
> 
> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here. 
> 
> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please. 
> 
> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy, please end this discussion and start a new one!
> 
> Kind thanks
> 
> Alan
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/7e5c0c6d/attachment-0001.html>