Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 136, Issue 10
Andrew Alston
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Thu Jan 4 05:05:05 UTC 2018
One person?
When did Mark, Saul, Owen, Michelle, Myself, Nishal, Sander and all those who legitimately signed the petition to object to this policy become one person.
You know - in preparing the appeal - I noticed something interesting about the floor debates as I watched hours and hours of video footage on this debate - those who went to the microphone - always - always stated the basis for their objection.
In almost every case where support was indicated for this proposal - almost no reasoning was given - and often the people at the microphone who were supporting - rather than support the substance of the policy - were actually there to attack the views of the opponents of the policy.
It made me question - are people supporting this proposal on substance - or on who wrote it. Why are there so few responses that actually rebut the arguments given by the opponents of the policy. When you disagree and wish to address an issue - it is common practice to address said issue through constructive debate that includes stating why you disagree and on what grounds.
Instead - all I heard was - I support this policy and disagree with everything X opponent said. In fact in the case of Markus - on video - there was a promise to produce a proper rebuttal by the following morning - it never arrived.
The opponents of this policy have clearly and carefully articulated why we think this is damaging and why we believe it is harmful / if people wish to dispute those views - let’s see it done with coherent facts and backed by evidence. After all - I also noticed that a vast percentage of the opponents of this are from academia - and is it not a fundamental academic principle that any hypothesis must be tested?
Let us let the appeal committee now do their work - I think the appeal case is clear
Andrew
________________________________
From: grace mupoyi <gracemupoyi at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 9:23:28 PM
To: rpd List
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 136, Issue 10
Boubacar,
You are right. Un my point of view, Afrinic must use democratic way doing thinks. It is not just because one person in the organization have his own interest (business) and want lead it at Afrinic.
For the Policy, I think the board must check how must people are against before to remove it or change something.
Afrinic it is for Africa not for one person. So, every Africa citizen must get part on that.
Regards
Grace Mupoyi
Le 3 janv. 2018 7:04 PM, <rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> a écrit :
Send RPD mailing list submissions to
rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Softlanding-Bis decision appeal (Boubakar Barry)
2. Re: Softlanding-Bis decision appeal (Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 15:50:25 +0000
From: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal
Message-ID:
<CAGrBSShOECh+jZv7Zd8adY_r_3NGtTp2dNwnApf1QRmVNhhUtA at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAGrBSShOECh%2BjZv7Zd8adY_r_3NGtTp2dNwnApf1QRmVNhhUtA at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Large segment of the community? I wonder how one can get to this statement.
Facts remain facts, no matter how often one repeats him/herself. One can
write/talk hundreds of times, his/her voice cannot count more than once.
Yes, I know we are not voting here. But if one looks objectively at the
number of people (the same ones) who are opposing this and other policies
aiming at preserving IP resources for Africa, then it becomes clear that a
small group of people wants to hold AfriNIC at ransom. And this is going on
for years.
No one who cares about Africa's interests should accept that.
Boubakar
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> As you say Noah - agreeing to disagree is ok and normal - so why can we
> not do that in the case of this proposal - there are a large segment of the
> community who disagree with it - and if we agreed to disagree - we go back
> to the status quo and there is no consensus - instead it seems we are being
> ?forced to agree? - but for all the reasons stated and reiterated and never
> responded to - we will not be forced into agreement on this policy - we
> disagree with it - let?s agree to disagree and move on with life - and the
> status quo (the current soft landing)
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>>
> _____________________________
> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal
> To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2018 16:00, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/3/2018 3:45 PM, Noah wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > I believe your points raised above were addressed and repeated many
> > times and archives are there, but just to retariate that;
> >
> > 1. The global community accepted in 2009 a softlanding policy which
> > granted AFRINIC just like other regions this last /8.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. AFRINIC would not have had that last /8 if the normal allocation
> > rules had continued to the end on IANA pool (need based and 1st come,
> > 1st serve)
>
> Yes.
>
> > 3. The last /8 which is a subject of the current softlanding policy and
> > all the proposals we've seen to amend it was meant for specific
> > purposes. Please
> > read https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/13<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/13>
> 5-afpub-2009-v4-001
> > <https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afp<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afp>
> ub-2009-v4-001>
>
> Yes.
>
> > 4. Nobody, not even AFRINIC is locking useful numbering resources as
> > allocations will continue as usual, folks are encouraged to adopt IPv6
> > and provision is made for resource members to facilitate the transition.
>
> As per the softlanding policy already in place.
> And the need to change to more stringent criteria ... ?
> ... is in my opinion not something we have a consensus about.
>
>
> Ok
>
>
>
> I believe if you say there is a consensus and I say there is no
> consensus, then the conclusion is that there is no consensus between us,
> or even in the larger group.
>
>
> IMHO, the co-chairs are best placed to determine consensus vs no consensus.
>
>
> Would you agree to these statements?
>
>
> If its just between me and you... we can agree to disagree and that is
> normal.
>
> Noah
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180103/a3a02085/attachment-0001.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180103/a3a02085/attachment-0001.html>>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 09:59:53 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
To: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal
Message-ID: <263891D9-1D0B-473C-AE90-5F33FA88352D at delong.com<mailto:263891D9-1D0B-473C-AE90-5F33FA88352D at delong.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 07:50 , Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com<mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Large segment of the community? I wonder how one can get to this statement.
>
> Facts remain facts, no matter how often one repeats him/herself. One can write/talk hundreds of times, his/her voice cannot count more than once.
True.
However, more than 20 petitioners, Andrew Alston, myself (Owen DeLong), Mark Elkins, Sander Steffan, Frank Habicht, Saul Stein, and others have all spoken out against this proposal. That?s more than 25 people in a community where the total number of participants in a policy debate is often less than 50. Indeed, I think the number of participants in this case is probably less than 100. If you don?t think that 25+ constitutes a large segment of ~100 people, then I?d like to know how you come to that conclusion.
You don?t have to be a majority to be a large segment of a population.
> Yes, I know we are not voting here. But if one looks objectively at the number of people (the same ones) who are opposing this and other policies aiming at preserving IP resources for Africa, then it becomes clear that a small group of people wants to hold AfriNIC at ransom. And this is going on for years.
Please.
This policy doesn?t preserve resources. It prevents them from being used. The same number of resources will exist whether they are sitting on a shelf unused at AfriNIC or Nobody is trying to hold AfriNIC at ransom. We have a legitimate disagreement about how the resources should be used. I?m not even a direct recipient of AfriNIC resources and most of the deployed number resources my company uses in Africa come from other RIRs. I don?t actually have a dog in this fight. I have nothing to gain and nothing to lose personally or professionally by this policy. My participation in the process is strictly based in my desire to see us do what is best for the AfriNIC constituency and for the internet as a whole.
> No one who cares about Africa's interests should accept that.
This is where the rhetoric from the proposal supporters starts to again border on ad hominem. Attempting to characterize those of us that oppose this policy (and other policies we believe are destructive rather than helpful to the internet) as:
1. Trying to hold the community ransom
2. Acting in bad faith
3. Not caring about Africa?s interest
Really don?t do anything to advance your position or the proposal. They only serve to infuriate and increase the emotion in what should be more a discussion of facts and a collegial difference of opinions about those facts.
Owen
>
> Boubakar
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
> As you say Noah - agreeing to disagree is ok and normal - so why can we not do that in the case of this proposal - there are a large segment of the community who disagree with it - and if we agreed to disagree - we go back to the status quo and there is no consensus - instead it seems we are being ?forced to agree? - but for all the reasons stated and reiterated and never responded to - we will not be forced into agreement on this policy - we disagree with it - let?s agree to disagree and move on with life - and the status quo (the current soft landing)
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>>
> _____________________________
> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal
> To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz> <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 Jan 2018 16:00, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz> <mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/3/2018 3:45 PM, Noah wrote:
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > I believe your points raised above were addressed and repeated many
> > times and archives are there, but just to retariate that;
> >
> > 1. The global community accepted in 2009 a softlanding policy which
> > granted AFRINIC just like other regions this last /8.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. AFRINIC would not have had that last /8 if the normal allocation
> > rules had continued to the end on IANA pool (need based and 1st come,
> > 1st serve)
>
> Yes.
>
> > 3. The last /8 which is a subject of the current softlanding policy and
> > all the proposals we've seen to amend it was meant for specific
> > purposes. Please
> > read https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001> <https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001>>
> > <https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001> <https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001<https://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/current/135-afpub-2009-v4-001>>>
>
> Yes.
>
> > 4. Nobody, not even AFRINIC is locking useful numbering resources as
> > allocations will continue as usual, folks are encouraged to adopt IPv6
> > and provision is made for resource members to facilitate the transition.
>
> As per the softlanding policy already in place.
> And the need to change to more stringent criteria ... ?
> ... is in my opinion not something we have a consensus about.
>
> Ok
>
>
>
> I believe if you say there is a consensus and I say there is no
> consensus, then the conclusion is that there is no consensus between us,
> or even in the larger group.
>
> IMHO, the co-chairs are best placed to determine consensus vs no consensus.
>
>
> Would you agree to these statements?
>
> If its just between me and you... we can agree to disagree and that is normal.
>
> Noah
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <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/20180103/5af0c0ad/attachment.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180103/5af0c0ad/attachment.html>>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
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>
------------------------------
End of RPD Digest, Vol 136, Issue 10
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180104/fe2543b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list