[rpd] Another opposition

Wed Dec 6 17:42:51 UTC 2017

> On Dec 5, 2017, at 22:26 , Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote:
> 
> Members
>  
> Lets allow the appeals committee to decide on this.  I think the co-chairs have done their job within the guidelines and the outcomes of the meeting and decisions that were made should be respected.  

How can you possibly come to this conclusion? There was clear and definite sustained opposition to this proposal on the mailing list going into the meeting.
None of those objections have been addressed by the community and therefore, nothing approaching the definition of consensus exists.

The job of the co-chairs is to gauge consensus. The co-chairs clearly erred in declaring consensus as it applies to the PDP.

> Allot of debate post the event does not help unless it is part of a new proposal.   

I completely disagree. The debate is vital to preventing a harmful policy which never reached consensus from being implemented in contravention of the PDP.

> It will only degenerate into personal attacks which does not help the community Nor does it make the appeals committee work any easier.

The only personal attacks I’ve seen so far have all been coming from the supporters of this proposal who seem to be resorting to ad hominem on account of not having facts on which they can support their position.

It is objective and verifiable fact that there was sustained valid objection to this proposal prior to the meeting.
It is objective and verifiable fact that those objections were not addressed prior to or during the meeting.
It is, therefore, objective and verifiable fact that no actual consensus existed.

This makes it objective and verifiable fact that the co-chairs erred in declaring consensus.

> In any decision there a number of sides and constructive dialogue is what will help us all as we learn from each other.  But we cannot do that without an ounce of respect for each other no matter how hard that might be it has to start.

I am quite confused by your statement here, Badru. I have seen no disrespect from the opposition. I have seen restatement of facts, factual arguments, and criticisms of the policy. The only criticisms of people that I have seen coming from the opposition have been:
	1.	Accusation that the co-chairs erred in declaring consensus.
		This is unavoidable under the circumstances and is a factually correct accusation.
	2.	Criticism of the ad hominem and personal attacks coming from supporters.

Owen

>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 12/6/17, 3:52 AM, "Kangamutima zabika Christophe" <funga.roho at yandex.com <mailto:funga.roho at yandex.com>> wrote:
>  
> Owen,
>  
>  
> Je pense aussi que nos deux opinions sont comme 2 lignes parallèles, elles ne peuvent donc pas se rencontrer. Vous n'en savez rien des arguments que je peux voir sur le fond, j'ai juste mentionné qu'à mon avis la forme n'ayant pas été respecté, il ne fallait pas continuer le débat sans avoir vidé les exceptions de forme. Quand aux propos du CEO d'afrinic l'interprétation que vous en faites est totalement différente de la mienne. Je vous suggérerez aussi de revoir tout ce qui s'est dit los du débat de cette proposition à la réunion de Lagos afin de comprendre globalement à quel stade était la procédure. Tout ceci ne fait que me reconforter dans mes opinions sur le PDP, c'est une procédure qui ne peut aboutir qu'à une boucle à cause de la notion lacunaire et floue de consensus mais aussi du fait que chaque étape de la procédure peut être remis en cause par tout détracteur inscrit à la liste de diffusion pouvant poster des avis et commentaires non fondé seulement parcequ'il veut bloquer une proposition qui lui ne convient pas. Tout celui qui a un lobby fort acquis à sa cause a vraisemblement beaucoup plus de chance de faire passé sa proposition.
>  
> I also think that our two opinions are like 2 parallel lines, so they can not meet. You do not know the arguments that I can see on the merits, I just mentioned that in my opinion the form was not respected, it was not necessary to continue the debate without having emptied the exceptions of form. When the words of the CEO of afrinic the interpretation you make is totally different from mine. I would also suggest that you review everything that has been said about this proposal at the Lagos meeting in order to understand globally what stage the procedure was. All this only reinforces my opinions on the PDP, it is a procedure that can only lead to a loop because of the incomplete and vague concept of consensus but also because each step of the procedure can be questioned by any detractor on the mailing list who can post notices and comments unfounded only because he wants to block a proposal that does not suit him. Anyone who has a strong lobby for his cause is likely to have a much better chance of making his proposal.
>  
>  
> 06.12.2017, 01:29, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>:
>>  
>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 16:08 , Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at yandex.com <mailto:funga.roho at yandex.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Owen,
>>>  
>>> A deux reprises, le CEO d'afrinic a fait valoir que la procédure prise par les pétitionnaires était à l'encontre des procédures régissant l'élaboration des politiques de gestion des ressources numériques d'afrinic. Mais pourquoi continuer à discuter sur le fond quand la forme est déjà tronquée.
>>> avant d'en venir aux fonds de la proposition, il devait d'abord veiller à ce que la forme ait été correct. relisez mes précédentes interventions, et vous comprendrez mon opinion. Ce n'est pas une pétition de quelques employés des fournisseurs d'accès qui peuvent changer des régles basiques légistique. En continuant sur cette voie, il ne fait que narguer davantage la communauté.
>>> Si vraiment, il tenait à défendre les intêrêts de l'idustrie d'internet comme il le prétend il n'avait qu'à intervenir publiquement lors de la réunion Afrinic de Lagos où posté un avis contraire sur la liste de diffusion en ce moment. Un groupe de 2 à 10 personnes ne peuvent prendre les ressources de tout un continent en otage parcequ'ils représentent soit disant les opérteurs dits actifs.
>>> J'assume tous mes propos et je réaffirme ma désapprobation totale contre cette démarche cavalière prise par ces pétitionnaires.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Owen,
>>> 
>>> On two occasions, the CEO of afrinic argued that the procedure taken by the petitioners was against the procedures governing the development of afrinic's digital resource management policies. But why continue to discuss on the merits when the form is already truncated.
>>  
>> Nope… On two occasions, he mentioned that the extra process being undertaken was, in his opinion, an unnecessary extra effort.
>>  
>>> before coming to the funds of the proposal, he had first to ensure that the form was correct. reread my previous interventions, and you will understand my opinion.
>>  
>> His form is perfectly valid within the PDP.
>>  
>>> This is not a petition from a few employees of ISPs who can change basic rules of law. By continuing on this path, he is just taunting the community.
>>  
>> You are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think anyone is attempting to change basic rules of law here. Andrew has chosen to be even more formal than is required in forwarding signed letters of protest to the decision taken by the co-chairs. There is nothing in the PDP which proscribes this, but also nothing which requires it.
>>  
>>> If he really wanted to defend the interests of the internet industry as he claims he only had to intervene publicly at the Afrinic meeting in Lagos where posted a contrary opinion on the mailing list at this time.
>>  
>> Actually, he and I have both posted several oppositions to this proposal on the mailing list prior to the Lagos meeting, so clearly that was not sufficient as you claim above.
>>  
>>> A group of 2 to 10 people can not take the resources of a whole continent hostage because they represent so-called active operators.
>>> I accept all my remarks and reaffirm my total disapproval of this cavalier step taken by these petitioners.
>>  
>> You are free to disapprove, but you still have made no argument in favor of the merits of the proposal, nor has anyone offered any argument to counter the claims of harm put up by the people who have spoken in opposition (a lot more than 10 by my count).
>>  
>> I understand your position and I respect it, even though I cannot agree with you. Nonetheless, I have not resorted to calling you names or accusing you of conduct which you are not guilty of. You, on the other hand have chosen to repeatedly do so with Andrew and I believe that is inappropriate.
>>  
>> Owen
>>  
>>>  
>>> 06.12.2017, 00:46, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>:
>>>> This is an ad hominem attack which has no place on this list or in the policy process.
>>>>  
>>>> While I respect your right to disagree with Andrew (and me and anyone else), I urge you to
>>>> disagree on the merits of the proposal and not with personal attacks.
>>>>  
>>>> While you may legitimately believe that locking up resources such that they can effectively never be
>>>> used is somehow in the best interests of the community, and that is your right, I will point out that
>>>> neither Andrew nor I have taken to calling you names or making accusations about your motivations
>>>> on the subject.
>>>>  
>>>> I assure you that all of the opinions I have expressed are based on what I believe to be the best
>>>> interests of the larger community and not on any personal gain nor on any gain for any of the
>>>> organizations that I work with/for.
>>>>  
>>>> I notice that you haven’t provided any concrete basis on which your position is built, nor any
>>>> fact-based counter-argument to the objections raised to this proposal.
>>>>  
>>>> Is ad hominem really all that you have on which to base your support for this proposal?
>>>>  
>>>> Owen
>>>>  
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2017, at 15:23 , Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at yandex.com <mailto:funga.roho at yandex.com>> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> MOi je pense que pour mon frère andrew, que ce n'est pas avec un lobbying nauséabond fondé sur des réclamations des membres hors la loi que vous obtiendrez le poste que vous convoitez lors de la prochaine élection. Vous y gagnerez beaucoup en vous faisant petit de peur d'essuyer un nouvel échec rétentissant comme Nairobi. Ceuxi qui pensent que cette politique n'est pas conforme à leur vision de la gestion des adresse IP en Afrique ils n'ont qu'à passer par la voie légitime.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ces pseudo- opérateurs opérant à la manière des fonds vautours, les vrais africains n'en veulent pas!!!!!.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Quel que soit la mobilisation des braconniers à l'ère numérique notre packages des ressources protégé le restera.
>>>>> Nous réaffirmons avec la plus grande énergie notre soutien indéfectible à cette proposition.
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> And I think for my brother Andrew, that it's not with nauseating lobbying based on outlaw claims that you'll get the job you want in the next election. You will gain a lot by making yourself small for fear of wiping out another resounding failure like Nairobi. Those who think that this policy is not consistent with their vision of IP address management in Africa they have to go through the legitimate way.
>>>>> 
>>>>> These pseudo-operators operating like vulture funds, true Africans do not want it !!!!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whatever the mobilization of poachers in the digital age our protected resource package will remain so.
>>>>>  
>>>>> We reiterate with the utmost energy our unwavering support for this proposal.
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> 05.12.2017, 20:30, "Andrew Alston" <andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com <mailto:andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>>:
>>>>>> As per attached
>>>>>> ,
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
>>>>> Contrôleur des douanes
>>>>> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
>>>>> Direction Générale des Douanes et
>>>>> Accises
>>>>> DRC
>>>>>  
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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> 
>>>  
>>> -- 
>>> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
>>> Contrôleur des douanes
>>> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
>>> Direction Générale des Douanes et
>>> Accises
>>> DRC
>>>  
>  
>  
> -- 
> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
> Contrôleur des douanes
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
> Accises
> DRC
>  
> _______________________________________________ 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/20171206/ac6acbee/attachment-0001.html>