[rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus

Thu Jan 4 10:12:41 UTC 2018

+++1

On 1/4/18, 12:48 PM, "Eucharia Chimbuzor Nwachukwu" <eucharia.nwachukwu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:

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 successfully.

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 achieved.

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 9:29 AM, "Eucharia Chimbuzor Nwachukwu" <eucharia.nwachukwu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:

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 successfully.

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 achieved.

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 liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

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 wacren.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 10:12:51 AM
To: Sander Steffann
Cc: pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net; AfriNIC RPD MList.
Subject: Re: [rpd] Appeal against softlanding-bis declaration of consensus 

On 3 January 2018 at 10:21, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> 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 afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ 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/20180104/76a4dcae/attachment-0001.html>