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

[Benjamin Eshun]

Daniel,

It will be good to see your proposal of insertion to strengthen  the  RSA get  community consensus and follow RSA amendment procedure.

However, instead of playing with this administrative and legal document called RSA, which is subject to all policies adopted by the community, why can’t we simply adopt a  policy that addresses the insertion you will propose? 

Let’s focus on refining the policy and leave the implementation and operational issues with staff.

As for your village moulders, I am sure they achieve what they intended, which a layman  may not see or accept.

These days, truth does not get the immediate traction it deserves, but gets finally revealed. 

I see room for community consensus here.

Benjamin

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I want to restate my earlier position of us working to strengthen the RSA, rather than working on the the Internet Resources Review Policy that is trying to draw out and address what can easily be an insertion in the RSA, that clearly states that abuse of use of resource can call for review of the resource allocation and VOILA! we move on.
> 
> Else we will be acting like the mud brick moulders in my village that keeping matching the mud in one place and believe they are moving ahead.
> 
> Again, my position is not falling far away from the tree. This is one very bitter policy.
> 
> Cheers
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2019, at 8:58 AM, 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.
>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>> I hope the Chairs are now familiar enough with the patterns in our PDP to focus on the substance of our deliberations.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Omo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd