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

[rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Apr 8 12:26:04 UTC 2019

> On Apr 8, 2019, at 03:58, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at> wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:40, Frank Habicht <geier at> wrote:
>> Dear PDWG and chairs,
>> On 07/04/2019 22:30, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>>> Op 7 apr. 2019, om 19:52 heeft Owen DeLong <owen at> het
>>>> volgende geschreven:
>> ...
>>> I ask the chairs to keep track of the progress towards getting
>>> consensus, but also to accept that if/when it becomes clear that
>>> consensus cannot be reached  to respect that outcome. There is no
>>> shame in not getting consensus.
>> I agree with what Owen and Sander have written. There are fundamental
>> questions about this policy. There is disagreement whether a policy like
>> this is needed in the first place - I also feel that existing mechanisms
>> in the RSA are sufficient.
> I would beg to differ.   Accountability is a basic issue that has to be addressed.  The problem statement of the policy proposal references the RSA and its limitations.

You can differ all you want, but I don’t agree with the problem statement. I don’t feel that there is insufficient accountability in the existing mechanisms. There may be an operational (not policy or contractual) deficiency in that staff may not be making adequate use of the existing tools for accountability. I’m not convinced that is the case, but even if it is, the way to address that is through discussion of the issue(s) with the CEO and management, not through vague and poorly written policy with massive potential for abuse. 

> What is useful in my opinion for objectors would be to avoid me too’s and add specific objections to the list of issues Owen has raised, and let their resolution or the authors inability to address them guide the chairs and community in reaching consensus (or not).

Whether or not you like the fact that multiple parties have similar objections to the ones I have raised, I believe there is value in the community seeing that dissent is not from a single individual, but from multiple parties. 

Certainly if they have additional objections, I encourage them to express those as well, but the me too’s have value as well. 

Please stop with your continued efforts to silence or curtail expressions of opposition to proposals you favor. 

> I hope the Chairs are now familiar enough with the patterns in our PDP to focus on the substance of our deliberations.

It would be nice if the authors could do so as well. 


More information about the RPD mailing list