[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Mon Dec 3 12:09:34 UTC 2018

Sami,

The line of thinking is severely flawed - firstly - you have the objections from the mailing lists - are you assuming that comments from the mailing lists between meetings disappear some how at the end of a meeting?

Are you saying that a community member who cannot afford to fly to every meeting has his input disregarded from one meeting to the next?

This does not make any logical sense in my mind... and prejuidices towards the voices of people who can afford to travel meeting to meeting to meeting - be it on their own dime, their companies dime, or sponsored.

Andrew

From: Sami Salih <sami.salih at outlook.com>
Sent: 03 December 2018 15:02
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>; Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at afrinic.net>; Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Dear Andrew,

Daniel's inqury was "Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have allowed the policy come.up.for discussion in Tunisia."
and I point him to the answer.

Now, you inqury was also replied to this morning, see the link
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008718.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008718.html>

BR

Dr. Sami H.O. Salih
Assistant Prof, School of Electronics Engineering, SUST
Head of R&D, NTC, SUDAN
President of SDv6TF
T/F: (249)122045707/187171355
________________________________
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 2:51 PM
To: Sami Salih; Ernest Byaruhanga; Daniel Yakmut
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy
Subject: RE: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Sami,

Actually the below link far from addresses the question at hand.

How does a policy gain consensus when it failed to gain it once before - without the concerns and substantive issues being addressed.  Either someone would have to withdraw their objections - or the objections which resulted in the failure of consensus would have to be addressed - which would at least in certain cases reflect in a change of the text.

Yes - the policy is still active - but it is active without consensus - since there is no way that consensus can reached without either a change in the policy or an explicit withdrawal of the MULTITUDE of objections that have been raised against this policy, so can the co-chairs please explain how this can happen in their view - because I think myself, and others are VERY confused as to how consensus could have been gained here.

Andrew

From: Sami Salih <sami.salih at outlook.com<mailto:sami.salih at outlook.com>>
Sent: 03 December 2018 14:44
To: Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at afrinic.net<mailto:ernest at afrinic.net>>; Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com<mailto:yakmutd at googlemail.com>>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Dear Daniel,

Your question has already addressed in a previous email this morning, So I hope you carefully follow the thread in the list to avoid unnecessary repetition.

Please refer to this link

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008715.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008715.html>

Regards,

PDWG Co-Chairs

Dr. Sami H.O. Salih
Assistant Prof, School of Electronics Engineering, SUST
Head of R&D, NTC, SUDAN
President of SDv6TF
T/F: (249)122045707/187171355

________________________________

From: Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 2:24 PM
To: Ernest Byaruhanga
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Thank you Ernest for your kind response. This clearly showed that the authors of the Review Policy do not care about any input from the community.

>From the last date of submission, it means nothing was considered by the authors from input made in Dakar meeting.

This means the policy remained as is without any input or review for over six months. Making it stale and should have been dicarded.

Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have allowed the policy come.up.for discussion in Tunisia.

Is there no case of disregard for rules here?

Cheers

Daniel

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 12:04 PM Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at afrinic.net<mailto:ernest at afrinic.net>> wrote:

Nishal,

> have there been any updates to this policy since the previous meeting.

No.

Version 6 was received on 10 April 2018, and no newer version thereafter.

More info:
https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details<https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details>

Ernest.

_______________________________________________
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/20181203/b4a6d973/attachment-0001.html>