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
Fri Apr 12 11:30:12 UTC 2019

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 12:50 PM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at> wrote:
> Sander,
> You chose to not  positively impact the history being written for AFRINIC. You now persist in denying AFRINIC community the ability, like other RIRs to enforce accountability, best practices and adopt an INR review policy.

Again with the ad hominem… I really must ask you to stop with the personal attacks or I will be forced to ask that your comments be moderated.

Not only is this attack personal, it’s utterly unwarranted and factually incorrect. Sander has worked to positively impact AfriNIC and the AfriNIC service region on multiple occasions.

He is not denying any such thing. He has neither done, nor said anything in the quoted email that even attempts to prevent the policy from moving forward. He merely states that he, too, would like to see my concerns addressed by the authors.

I find it very interesting that instead of trying to address the referenced concerns, which are well spelled out and quite legitimate, you  choose, instead, to attack the person asking the questions. First you attack me, then you attack Sander. Will you attack any person who brings forward or supports an opposition to this policy on a personal level?

Why is that?

Is it because you don’t have a good argument for the facts? Is it because you can’t come up with a way to counter the concerns raised?

Conventional wisdom has been expressed as “When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither is on your side, bang your fist on the table and shout, hoping nobody will notice.”

It seems to me that the law (in this case the RSA) is not on your side. The facts (history of this proposal and the objections raised) are not on your side. Is this your way of pounding on the table, hoping that we will not notice?

Well…. We noticed.

> Why do you want to see responses to the fanciful  points on a policy proposal which you buried long ago?

Please explain what is fanciful about the objections I presented? They have not at any point been addressed by any of the authors or any of the proponents of this policy proposal. If you believe they are fanciful, then present evidence by which they can be dismissed. 

> This is a  PDP  working group where participants are expected to discuss and provide suggestions and texts to improve proposals. Please bring texts and suggestions.

You are wrong here. The PDP working group is expected to discuss the merits of proposals and decide whether or not there is community consensus to move the proposal forward. Sure, this can include providing alternative text and/or improvements, but it can also include raising objections and discussing the reasons a proposal should not move forward and presenting dissent so as to prevent the mistaken impression of consensus.

I understand that you don’t like the fact that this proposal doesn’t have consensus and that those objecting to it are sustaining their objections. I understand that you wish you could force us into providing recommendations to make the proposal palatable.

Unfortunately, this proposal is not palatable and will not be palatable.

> As done since the inception of the proposal in May 2016 and throughout, authors will comment on all  pertinent suggestions.

Apparently, authors still haven’t learned that commenting on suggestions is not the only requirement. They must also address all relevant objections. Consensus is about solving dissent. If you truly believe that this policy is necessary and you want to see it implemented, there are two possible solutions:

	+	Convince those who oppose it to change their minds.
	+	Modify the proposal in a manner sufficient to resolve the objections.

Contrary to your apparent belief, a proposal is _NOT_ entitled to achieve consensus, nor are objections or calls for abandonment of a proposal out of line if it is unlikely to achieve either of the two outcomes above.

It is quite unlikely that you will convince those of us with serious objections to accept this proposal as-is, or, in any form resembling its current state.

It is even less unlikely that the authors will resolve the objections as it has been many months and so far, authors have refused to so much as acknowledge the legitimacy of objecting to the proposal.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list