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

[Paschal Ochang]

I think the authors of this proposal have tried their best to provide some
editorial output.  However, I think a clear meaning of the word update as
regards to the proposal should ball down to applying meaningful changes to
the proposal and not mere editorial changes which prevents a metamorphosis
of this proposal and still reflects previous interpretations.

On Monday, April 8, 2019, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:

>
>
> On 8 Apr 2019, at 13:26, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2019, at 03:58, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:40, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> 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 delong.com> 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.
>
>
> You seem confused.  I am asking for constructive comments so we can have a
> useful discussion, something you seem to have missed in your opinionated
> outburst.   This precisely what we need to avoid to move forward in AFRINIC
> and for the Chairs to note.
>
> Omo
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190408/8b17a025/attachment-0001.html>