[rpd] Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07" (IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).

[Saul Stein]

Dear Board, Co-Chairs & members of the community.

Please consider this my engagement with the PDP co-chairs regarding how 
consensus has been achieved.

I have yet to see any consensus or a number of people agreeing with this 
policy. Since it went to last call, there are been numerous people that have 
never posted to the list, citing objections. More than the list that Andrew 
mentions. Not to mention the community members that sent partitions.

I am not going to dissect this as Owen has commented on basically 
everything, but I'd just like to emphasise the bias that been placed with 
this policy in stating that I am unable to think for myself and only 
objecting because I have been told to - a serious insult to my integrity!

Please consider this my engagement pre-appeal – should the appeal occur and 
should we not choose alternative means of dealing with this situation.

PDP Chairs – I believe you have erred in this decision – and I wish to know 
you came to the desicion of consensus?
Also, is there a possibility of it getting reversed without an appeal.

Please can we expect an answer within 48 hours. Please consider this my 
formal objection

Yours sincerely
Saul

-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: 27 December 2017 10:21 PM
To: Sami Salih <sami at ntc.gov.sd>
Cc: AfriNIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>; rpd 
<rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07" 
(IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).

Dear co-chairs, board, and RPD list,

Please consider this my formal objection to the erroneous conclusion of last 
call by the co-chairs and engagement per the PDP requesting that they 
reverse this decision. If I don’t see evidence that the decision is to be 
reversed by the co-chairs within 48 hours, I will begin the formal appeal 
process as documented in the PDP.

This report is nothing short of a work of fiction.

Beginning with the first sentence “In line with the Policy Development 
Process”, since there is no way a policy with the number of sustained and 
unaddressed objections present with this policy can be even remotely 
considered to have achieved rough consensus.

Previous objections clarified that the declaration of consensus in Lagos was 
in error and that error is now compounded by this action.

It’s unclear to me where the appeal of the original decision stands, but 
there was clearly engagement and clear statements on the list that an appeal 
was desired.

The co-chairs belief that the current version of the proposal addresses 
notes and observations made is absurd. Multiple objections remain which have 
not been addressed by this version and those objections were voiced again 
during the last call period with clarification that they were not, in fact, 
addressed.

The claim that there were “identical petition letters” rallied by “a 
community member” is utterly false. There were letters from multiple 
parties, some of which were posted by a single community member to the list 
on behalf of other community members who are not subscribed to the list and 
chose not to post directly. There is no basis for discounting or ignoring 
input from these community members. Further, the letters were not actually 
identical. Several of them were modified by the individuals prior to 
signing, including at least one which was written and submitted directly to 
the list by me (Owen DeLong).

The claim that the objections to the co-chairs’ last call decision was from 
a single member of the community and “those he rallied” is also patently 
false. Andrew did not rally me into objecting to this last call decision, I 
got there quite on my own. Further, just because one or more members of the 
community encouraged others to join them in objecting to a proposal does not 
mean that those voiced should not be heard or count any less than any other 
voice. After all, there is no way I could convince someone to join me in 
objecting to a proposal that they were in favor of passing.

“Everyone had however had several weeks of opportunity to comment when the 
revised version of the proposal was put out by the authors in response to 
community feedback” [sic]

This sentence ignores the fact that there were multiple objections raised 
during those weeks and that many of the earlier objections to this proposal 
remained unaddressed by the changes in this version. Further, one objector 
stated that he was no longer opposed to one particular section due to this 
last round of revisions, but did not remove his general objection to the 
proposal overall and did not state support for the proposal in general.

The claim that there was only one objection that highlighted specific issues 
with the policy proposal also doesn’t match the record.

I urge the co-chairs to review the record of this proposal and the various 
posts about the problems with this policy proposal and reconsider their 
decision in light of these facts.

Absent such an action by the co-chairs within the next 48 hours, I will be 
joining the other people who have already commented in calling for an appeal 
of this decision.

Should the board choose to take action on this policy proposal prior to the 
conclusion of the existing appeal and/or the appeal that is likely to result 
from this step, I urge them to take the action of remanding the policy back 
to the PDWG on the basis that the PDP was not followed and the declarations 
of consensus both at Lagos and at the conclusion of last call were in error 
and the record clearly shows a pattern which does not constitute rough 
consensus.

These actions are not only placing AfriNIC at risk, but are jeopardizing the 
credibility of the entire multi-stakeholder bottom-up consensus driven 
process on a global scale. This error must be stopped before it is allowed 
to go any further for the sake of the entire internet community.

There are other nits I could pick with this report, (e.g. the questionable 
staff opinion), but I will leave those out for brevity here.

Respectfully submitted,

Owen DeLong
Concerned community member
owen at delong.com
27 December, 2017

> On Dec 26, 2017, at 11:36 , Sami Salih <sami at ntc.gov.sd> wrote:
>
>
> Dear AFRINIC Board,
>
> Please find the attached report on the Policy Proposal Report on the 
> Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07"(IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).
>
> Regards,
>
> Sami Salih, Dewole Ajao
> PDWG Co-Chairs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
> Sudan University of Science and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box
> 11111-407
> email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
> Mob: +249122045707
>
> <IPv4 Soft Landing
> BIS-Report.pdf>_______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd