<html><body>Jackson,<BR>
<BR>
Let me now respond because I had a feeling that was coming, and I have thought long and hard about how I would respond to that.<BR>
<BR>
Firstly, I do not agree – the positions I have taken on this list – if you go back and read – are always backed very carefully by substantiation, numbers, figures, and yes, my own interpretation of the data. The fact is – there are many that follow what I say because of that substantiation – and I have always said to everyone – if you wish to argue a point with me, I welcome the debate – but dispute the figures and the facts and the substantiation of what I am saying, do not dispute the man. What I have done is lobbied very hard for the positions I have taken on the lists where I am present and a regular. People there may have seen the positions I have taken and chosen to take those positions, but I have never, ever, gone out and said, support this position without understanding it.<BR>
<BR>
If you read the emails I have sent to various lists endorsing candidates – or the emails I have sent endorsing policies – in every one I have said, these are my positions, clearly explained – if you support them, vote that way, if you don’t that’s ok – but still get out there and vote your conscience. If you disagree with me – argue with me – but argue the facts.<BR>
<BR>
That is not the same thing as regionalization and blind block support, it just happens though that the people I have conversing to and lobbying for my positions agree with the *substantiated* positions I have taken. Yes, I have published figures openly that show the financial good standing positions of various regions – its public data – it may not be pretty to read – but its factual and it needs to be addressed. Yes, I have published data with regards to the IP space in various parts of the continent – again, public data, again, things that need to be considered and thought about. Yes, I have published data about the allocation statistics as compared by country and region, again, public data that needs to be discussed.<BR>
<BR>
What I have not done – is advocated a position based on who wrote a policy, where they are from, the language they speak, or any other such detail – and I challenge anyone who disputes this to provide substantiated evidence.<BR>
<BR>
What I have never done – is gone to the microphone to take a position against a script that I did not understand – I have been able to argue with and substantiate the position – even if people don’t agree with them – and I have said to every person I have ever lobbied to support or not support to take their positions from a position of understanding. I have explained my views, and told them to read the policies and understand the positions they are going to take. <BR>
<BR>
I understand that when positions are taken sometimes those positions are influenced by the view of a market from a perspective, we have very diverse markets, we have very diverse points of view driven by the dynamics in those markets, and I have no problem with that. What worries me though is when I see people advocating positions that when questioned on, they cannot explain their own position. I worry when I stand behind someone at the microphone and they are holding a notebook and giving something to the author of a policy, which is reading word for word from an email sent to him by the author himself. I worry about the blatant politicization of policy as seen by a large segment of the PDP community wearing shirts that make inflammatory claims about their smooth transition to ipv6 being opposed – which is an unsubstantiated accusation that is sensationalist at best.<BR>
<BR>
I have long argued that in the board space, this is political – it’s an election – there is politics involved. There is lobbying, there are preferential candidate’s dependent on the view of the electorate, there is gathering of support from regions of support – I get that – that’s politics – it occurs worldwide and its part of any elective process (and I don’t have an objection to it, let democracy reign).<BR>
<BR>
However – once we walk into the policy forum, where policies affect all of us, where a policy binds the whole community, I argue there that anyone who wishes to argue a policy should be arguing from the perspective of the policy and not the regional point of view, and arguing it from a holistic perspective. That in my opinion is not happening. If people are going to take a position, at the very least, take your own position from a position on the policy itself – not the authors, not where the authors live, or the language the policy was written in. <BR>
<BR>
At this point – I am refraining from giving specific examples of the behavior that I have seen – and I will continue to do so unless I have a good reason to so – since I do not wish to turn this into another person on person, finger pointing blaim game. I believe that myself, and every single active person in this community at some point has been guilty of this to a lesser or larger degree – and we need to deal with this in a holistic sense – but we cannot deal with it unless we talk about it – so, in conclusion, I never claimed to be perfect or not to have made mistakes, however, I do say, we have to fix this. I will also say – the positions I have taken have been substantiated – and its possible people may not agree with my interpretation of the data, and that’s ok – but then lets argue the facts and the interpretation – not the person.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Andrew<BR>
<BR>
On 06/12/2016, 10:44, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi@gmail.com> wrote,<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Andrew Alston<BR>
<Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:<BR>
> Hi David,<BR>
><BR>
> Firstly – I write what I say below in my own capacity – and PURELY my own<BR>
> capacity. What follows is not stated as fact – it is stated as observations<BR>
> and as it is stated as my own beliefs, which I hope are not accurate, and I<BR>
> am (extremely) open to being PROVED wrong.<BR>
><BR>
> You know – I watched that inbound transfer policy fail – and to be honest I<BR>
> expected as much – because let me say it like it is – I do not believe that<BR>
> the people who stood against the policy stood against the policy itself – I<BR>
> believe this was very much a case of what was described by Chris and Jan at<BR>
> the microphone at the end of the meeting. It seems to be stances are taken<BR>
> against the regions the policies come from or the people who author the<BR>
> policies. Until we fix the blatant regional splits in the policy process –<BR>
> we will not come right.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Indeed No conceivable explanation why such a proposal could fail apart<BR>
from above.<BR>
<BR>
It seems to me that these regional splits were started by you Andrew.<BR>
And some of your actions tend to continue championing these splits<BR>
unfortunately.<BR>
<BR>
You may need to be part of the effort to fix the issues you created.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<br /><br /><span style="font-family:Arial; Font-size:10.0pt"> <hr width="100%" /> This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.<br /> For more information please visit <a href="http://www.mimecast.com">http://www.mimecast.com</a> <hr width="100%" /> </span></body></html>