Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Eucharia Chimbuzor Nwachukwu eucharia.nwachukwu at
Thu Jan 4 08:29:35 UTC 2018

Dear colleagues,
I see from Omo response and corresponding response from Andrew that there's
more to what we are discussing on this matter. From my personal
observation, I deduce the following:
1. Omo and co submitted proposal.
2. Andrew and co sort for comprise on the proposal.
3. Omo and co refused to negotiate.
4. Andrew and co submitted a counter proposal with the aim of ensuring that
the first proposal doesn't get a concensus.
5. Andrew was happy to withdraw his proposal when both were advised to do
so because it was a dream come true. Omo and co wasn't happy with the
advice to withdraw because it seemed like Andrew has pushed his threat
6. Omo and co amended the proposal and resubmitted and it was never turned
down by congregation rather the same group who stood against the proposal
kept objecting. The said proposal seems to satisfy the expectations of the
larger community including some of the appellants who have no issues with
the proposal but the process of passing it. Yet, a concensus can't be
My submission: I want to ask, as a community, do we need to be strangulated
in this way? Should it be a norm that when your negotiation fails, the
community stands still? I see nothing bad in that proposal and it has to
pass in some way. Let us move forward, please!

Wishing all of us a prosperous and focused new year.

Eucharia Nwachukwu

On Jan 4, 2018 8:28 AM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at>

> Go right ahead Omo - I did state that if there was no negotiation a
> counter proposal would be coming - 100 percent I did - because we believed
> all along on the repeal.
> That reach out to you was an effort to prevent that - but you rejected it.
> But if we want to start sharing other skype logs - maybe I should also
> respond with the rest of the logs with your co-authors - happy to oblige on
> that as well - let me know if you wish to play that game - I would rather
> not - but it’s up to you.
> The fact is - an attempt was made to reach out - and it was openly and
> transparently stated that if a compromise could not be met - a counter
> proposal would be coming - I stand by that and always will
> Andrew
> Get Outlook for iOS <>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:12:51 AM
> *To:* Sander Steffann
> *Cc:* pdwg-appeal at; AfriNIC RPD MList.
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of
> consensus
> On 3 January 2018 at 10:21, Sander Steffann <sander at> wrote:
>> Hello rpd and appeals committee,
>> I am also one of the contributors to the memorandum sent by Andrew and I
>> fully support its contents. While my personal opinions about the policy
>> proposal are not as strong as those of other opposers, I do recognise that
>> their objections have not been addressed and that therefore there can be no
>> consensus on this proposal.
>> Building community-wide consensus, or acknowledging that there is no
>> consensus and withdrawing, are the cornerstones of our policy development
>> process. Violations of that process are a serious danger to the community.
>> Therefore I support this appeal.
>> Sincerely,
>> Sander Steffann
> The real danger to the community in my view is cohorts who seek to impose
> their wishes on the AfriNIC community by abusing loopholes in the process
> in the guise of upholding its tenets.
> My reasons for responding to this thread:
> #1 - I am explicitly named in the appeal as refusing to enter into
> discussions on competing proposals.
> #2 - Reference is also made to a Skype conversation with the SL-BIS
> authors in the appeal document
> 1)    Some background history behind AFPUB-2016-V4-001
>> Shortly after AFPUB-2016-V4-001 came out – a second proposal was put to
>> the floor to repeal the current (and now active) soft landing proposal.
>> This was done after attempts to communicate with the authors of
>> AFPUB-2016-V4-001 around the policy directly failed (sadly these
>> communications were on Skype and the logs are long gone – so since this
>> cannot be proven, it is submitted merely as unsubstantiated background,
>> however the publication of the second policy is well documented fact)
> Well, can I provide substantiated background?  I have these Skype logs.
> What they show is that violations of AfriNIC processes may have been going
> on for some time and not always for community interest.
> On 10th Feb 2016, shortly after the Softlanding-BIS proposal was announced
> on the list, Mr Alston contacted me on Skype to reach what he termed an
> "amicable agreement”.  He advised that we needed to negotiate otherwise he
> would post a counterproposal which had 8 authors on the lists and
> claimed that neither would pass as it was very easy to block consensus on
> policies.
> The rest is in the archives.  We have since seen the various attempts to
> make good on this threat to block consensus on SL-BIS.   The proposal ended
> up being unnecessarily contentious despite its aim for the best interests
> of the whole community.   Failing to block consensus on the policy, the
> process which had served well up till now has become the new AfriNIC
> structure to assault.
> I had considered these logs private but as Mr Alston cites them in his
> appeal, I am happy to produce.
> Best wishes
> Omo Oaiya
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list