<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head><body>
<div>
<div>Jackson actually, we have made attempts. I would rather not publish private correspondence but will if need be.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There have been multiple emails and phone calls and a meeting with the co chair as well. Dewole can confirm this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There was also an initial meeting with the authors of both policies in Gaborone.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, we are open to working </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
<br>
<div class="x_acompli_signature">Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 12, 2016 8:29:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Alston<br>
<b>Cc:</b> AfriNIC RPD MList.<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Statement from the authors of Soft Landing Overhall (AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01)</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">You are sounding like a crybaby and it is not funny.<br>
<br>
Jokes aside:-<br>
<br>
> For those of you who were not in the room in Mauritius during the last PDP<br>
> session. During the policy meeting there was clear indication from the<br>
> community in the room that they wished to see the authors of both<br>
> AFPUB-2016-V4-002-DRAFT01 (Soft Landing Overhaul) and the authors of<br>
> AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT03 (IPv4 Soft Landing-bis) withdraw their policies<br>
> and then go away and work together to come up with a mutually acceptable<br>
> policy, so that the community was not forced to decide between two competing<br>
> policies that directly contradicted each other.<br>
<br>
The 'wish' in my observation was "work together towards mutually<br>
acceptable policy" and NOT "withdraw policies and work together<br>
towards mutually acceptable policy".<br>
<br>
You seem the one that put the condition of both to withdraw as the<br>
only way to work with others. When you are hoping to collaborate out<br>
of impasse and you start by setting such conditions - you are going to<br>
hit a wall. You are already placing yourself superior ab-initio.<br>
<br>
<><br>
<br>
> It is now our contention as the authors of the Overhall policy, that sadly,<br>
> working jointly with the authors of the Soft Landing-BIS policy (and in<br>
> particular with the individual who reneged on the agreement given to the<br>
> community) has now become impossible, since we feel that we, and the<br>
> community were lied to.<br>
<br>
Have you made an attempt to reach out to the other party again to<br>
explore other options to collaborate? Don't you think that your "I<br>
either win or you lose" approach here is already divisive? Are you<br>
moving forward fronting the community's interest?<br>
<br>
> The authors of the Soft Landing Overhall policy would also be remiss if we<br>
> did not express our extreme concern that this community is now represented<br>
> at the ASO by an individual who could display such blatant bad faith and<br>
> walk away from promises to this community in the manner that was done.<br>
<br>
A frivolous and small-minded remark IMO.<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>
<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>