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

[Omo Oaiya]

> On 8 Apr 2019, at 23:22, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 8:42 AM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 13:26, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 03:58, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:40, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz <mailto: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 <mailto: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. 
> 
> I am not the one who is confused here…
> 
> I am stating that IMHO, the “me too’s” _ARE_ constructive comments. Sure, comments which shed light on additional problems with this policy text are also useful, perhaps even more useful than expressions of agreement with previous descriptions of the problems with this proposal. 
> 
> If your only goal is to modify the policy to the point of consensus and you wish to assume that doing so is possible, then, certainly the most relevant comments are the ones that highlight the issues that must be addressed in order to achieve consensus. However, if your goal is also to gauge community desire for the proposal, as is the burden of the co-chairs, then having an expression of the volume of dissent is similarly important to understanding the topics of dissent.
> 
> I referenced your continued efforts because in Dakar, you attempted to instruct those present in the meeting not to express opposition, but merely to discuss needed changes to the policy. You continue to approach the discussion as if eventual consensus is the only valid outcome for a proposal. That’s simply not the case. No consensus and abandonment is a perfectly valid outcome and, IMHO, is the correct outcome for this proposal.
> 
> So… we are both asking for constructive comments. The difference is that I am not attempting to silence anyone.
> 
> Owen
> 


You are certainly confused.   I was not in Dakar.

Omo OAIYA
Chief Strategy Officer/Directeur de la Stratégie | WACREN <http://www.wacren.net/>
m: +234 808 888 1571 , +233 205 228 693







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190409/e16bcc2b/attachment.html>