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

[rpd] Questions for Alain...

Saul Stein saul at
Wed Jun 6 06:15:36 UTC 2018

I have been waiting for Alain to respond, but sadly he hasn’t.

He has written and with a few colleagues, tried to bulldoze through a 
proposal and suggested another, ignoring all protests and objections while 
lambasting all and anyone who stood in his way . A policy that over the past 
number of years has cause and fractured this community immeasurably!

There is a clear conflict of interest here.

I therefor call for Alain to withdraw both his soft landing policy within 
24hours. Should that not happen, I call on the chairs of this group, to use 
powers of common sense to reject this policy as a conflict of interest.

I also call for Alains other proposal to be withdrawn, as it is clear that 
this is designed to obscure conflicts of interest.

Mike, sadly the motivation here is the issue. In my view there is no 
credibility in anyone that berates and divides an organisation for 
self-interest as we have seen here. The proof is the website and LinkedIn, 
with no denial from Alain who if this wasn’t true has now had time to 

From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at]
Sent: 06 June 2018 02:05 AM
To: Owen DeLong <owen at>
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...

Hi Owen,

Simply, no. His motivation doesn't change the credibility of his arguments. 
They stand on their own.

There is no place and no need for this, especially with the subject line, 
how could it not be ad hominem?

Attacking the motivation of a person is almost the definition of argumentum 
ad hominem.



---- On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:40:12 -0400 Owen DeLong <owen at 
<mailto:owen at> > wrote ----

While I agree ad hominem has no place in policy debates, I think there is 
validity in this case to attacking the credibility of his arguments based on 
what is now a visible previously undisclosed conflict of interest. If he had 
merely proposed or advocated for the policy, it would be one thing, but his 
intransigent refusal to withdraw the policy despite repeated rejection by 
the community establishes a pattern of facts which invites scrutiny of his 
motivations and the credibility of his arguments in light of recent 


On Jun 5, 2018, at 08:03 , Mike Burns <mike at 
<mailto:mike at> > wrote:

Hi Andrew,

While I sympathize with your position on the soft landing proposals, and 
even accepting all the facts below are true, the fact remains that you were 
attacking the man (ad hominem) by impugning his motivations, not his 



From: Andrew Alston [ <mailto:Andrew.Alston at> 
mailto:Andrew.Alston at]

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 10:37 AM

To: Mike Burns < <mailto:mike at> mike at>; 'Owen 
DeLong' < <mailto:owen at> owen at>; 'Chevalier du Borg' < 
<mailto:virtual.borg at> virtual.borg at>

Cc: 'AfriNIC RPD MList.' < <mailto:rpd at> rpd at>

Subject: RE: [rpd] Questions for Alain...


Nothing ad-hominem about this –

Fact – a policy was proposed that the community rejected

Fact – the community asked for the policy to be withdrawn – multiple times

Fact – Alain refused to withdraw and then denied that the community had 
demanded such – despite it being on video

Fact – The policy was some how shoved through – and appealed

Fact – the appeal was granted

Fact – Alain then slammed the integrity of the appeal committee and accused 
them of malfeasance – again – that’s on video

All of this – over a 3 period while railing against people who wanted IP 
space and doing everything in his power to ensure that people could not GET 
the space they needed by policy – while also holding a block of space for 
his employer that remains unannounced other than 25% of it announced by a 
commercial ASN – while pushing for an audit policy that anyone can clearly 
see was designed to target specific individuals – and I can name them.

To then turn around and open a broker – while attempting to use policy to 
swing things like this with no declaration of interest – might be within the 
rules – but it is in my opinion – shockingly bad ethics and at the very 
least – shows a total lack of judgement


From: Mike Burns [ <mailto:mike at> mailto:mike at]

Sent: 05 June 2018 17:11

To: 'Owen DeLong' < <mailto:owen at> owen at>; 'Chevalier du 
Borg' < <mailto:virtual.borg at> virtual.borg at>

Cc: 'AfriNIC RPD MList.' < <mailto:rpd at> rpd at>

Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...

“There’s nothing wrong with being a broker” – Owen

Thanks for that, Owen. 😉

More to the point, there is nothing wrong with a broker authoring policy.

I agree that it’s better to be open about being a broker when authoring 

However this thread began entirely as an ad hominem.

+1 to the previous poster who said it’s past time for Africa to get in sync 
with the rest of the world regarding the IPv4 market.

From: Owen DeLong [ <mailto:owen at> mailto:owen at]

Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2018 9:14 AM

To: Chevalier du Borg < <mailto:virtual.borg at> 
virtual.borg at>

Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. < <mailto:rpd at> rpd at>

Subject: Re: [rpd] Questions for Alain...

There’s nothing wrong with being a broker. However, the SL-BIS proposal is 
one which brokers stand to profit from.

Your analogy of the doctor doesn’t apply because the doctor isn’t profiting 
from it when you stop smoking. Indeed, you’re improved health might actually 
cost him money.

This would be more like having the doctor encourage your smoking and then 
discovering that he also owned a tobacco company.

Not only is it bad medical advice, but turns out the doctor stands to profit 
from it if the community takes his bad advice.


On Jun 5, 2018, at 04:19, Chevalier du Borg < 
<mailto:virtual.borg at> virtual.borg at> wrote:

Dear M. Alson

Is there a logic arguement in here somewhere?

Ad-hominem is not logic

After all, yourself have defended broker on this list saying there nothing 
wrong with it.

The doctor advise to STOP smoking is still good advice for you, even if 
doctor hisself is a big smoker.

Le mar. 5 juin 2018 à 14:31, Andrew Alston < 
<mailto:Andrew.Alston at> Andrew.Alston at> a 
écrit :

You have actively supported and fought for the new soft landing policy – to 
artificially restrict space to entities that need it.

Now, I’d like to ask – as an author of the soft-landing-bis policy which you 
have STILL not withdrawn… aren’t you just a LITTLE bit conflicted in trying 
to create an artificial shortage and make it hard for people to get space – 
while starting and founding an IP broker in Africa?

Maybe now we understand the *true* motivations behind the soft landing bis 




RPD mailing list

 <mailto:RPD at> RPD at



Borg le Chevalier


"Common sense is what tells us the world is flat"


RPD mailing list

 <mailto:RPD at> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list