<html><body>Barrack,<BR>
<BR>
Just to clarify my standing.<BR>
<BR>
The authors of the policy that was withdrawn are currently of the opinion that the status quo is acceptable due to the vast lack of consensus on both of the previous policies. It is our view that the differences in those are such that attempting to revise the current soft landing policy at this late stage of the game, considering we are likely to be IN soft landing phase by the time the next PDP meeting comes serves little purpose. <BR>
<BR>
I do not know if work is being done on the other policy that was meant to be withdrawn and has not been - it is possible that it is. However, I very much doubt that in the form that that policy sits it will find any form of consensus, and I am now questioning the wisdom of attempting to change the current policy at this point in the game when we need to face reality - the original soft landing policy was debating ad nauseum for 3 years before consensus was found. The current proposal is no closer than that was in the early phases. If we are going to spend 3 years debating a policy the space will be gone by the time we get around to amending it - and I really believe this will happen. As such, are we not better off saying, we have a status quo, we have a policy that took 3 years to formulate, and we accept the status quo and stop worrying about v4 and get on with what needs to be done - proper policy work around v6 and other such things.<BR>
<BR>
I strongly and wholeheartedly believe that we are also sitting in a situation where far more work needs to be concentrated on things like transfer policies, because the current status is that there are organisations in Africa who are already participating in the transfer market (as purchasers not sellers), and they are doing it through RIPE memberships - because we have no policy that allows them to do it via AfriNIC. All this does is deprive AfriNIC of members and ends up depriving AfriNIC of revenue while driving our African members towards RIPE. And I *KNOW* this has been happening because I know of organisations that HAVE purchased space on the secondary market and done it through RIPE memberships. <BR>
<BR>
So in my view - I don't believe that concentrating more work on the soft landing policy is either necessary or justified - I believe that our efforts are better focused elsewhere - and I also do not believe at this point that we as a community are likely to achieve consensus on touching that policy based on past history around these policies - and by the time we do - the new policy will serve little point<BR>
<BR>
Andrew<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com] <BR>
Sent: 21 March 2017 07:30<BR>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com><BR>
Cc: Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com>; rpd List <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue<BR>
<BR>
Many thanks Andrew,<BR>
<BR>
>From your comments i can extract two major points.<BR>
<BR>
a) The Status quo remains<BR>
b) The authors to draft a new policy taking into consideration areas in which they have consensus as agreed in the last meeting in Mauritius.<BR>
<BR>
Given the work that has already been done i would go for option B.<BR>
Again it would be good if the authors can find a common footing in the interest of the Internet Community in Africa. I hope the authors can make it easier for all of us since we are moving in circles.<BR>
<BR>
Can we then count on the authors?, at least we have heard from Andrew, what do the others have to say?<BR>
<BR>
Regards<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:<BR>
> Hi All,<BR>
><BR>
> The co-authors of the original policy stand by what we have originally said.<BR>
> In the meeting in Mauritius a clear indication was given by authors of <BR>
> both policies that both policies would be withdrawn and a mutual <BR>
> policy would then be worked on. Unfortunately following the meeting <BR>
> one side renegaded on this and chose to refuse to withdraw. We felt <BR>
> that, in our opinion, this was done in bad faith, and felt that it <BR>
> would be impossible to work closely on a policy with individuals who <BR>
> refused to show good faith and act on their indicated commitments to <BR>
> the community. This is what caused the deadlock originally and this is the current status quo.<BR>
><BR>
> With regards to the co-chairs working on a policy that combines <BR>
> elements of rough consensus - while in theory this sounds like a good <BR>
> idea - at the same time I have to raise a big red flag and say that I <BR>
> cannot support this. It is the job of the co-chairs of the PDP to <BR>
> gauge consensus. It is not the job of the co-chair's to CREATE <BR>
> consensus. Indeed there is a fundamental conflict of interest when the <BR>
> individuals who are required to gauge consensus will effectively be <BR>
> gauging consensus on their own policy, since the moment the elements <BR>
> are combined based on what the belief of rough consensus is into <BR>
> another policy, while the elements may have been drafted by others in <BR>
> other policies, it is still in effect a new policy, and it is <BR>
> untenable to have those that much gauge consensus doing so against their own policies.<BR>
><BR>
> If this community truly DOES wish a change to the soft landing policy <BR>
> then it is incumbent on those that wish that change to go ahead and <BR>
> draft a policy that is mutually acceptable. It was clearly <BR>
> demonstrated in Mauritius that neither of the current proposals was <BR>
> acceptable, as neither reached consensus. At this point the process is <BR>
> clear, either the authors of one of the current policies (though one <BR>
> has been formally withdrawn), modify their own policies to reach a <BR>
> point of consensus, or a new policy is drafted *by the community* that <BR>
> CAN reach that consensus point, or nothing is done and the status-quo remains.<BR>
><BR>
> What CANNOT happen though is that the co-chairs of the PDP go into <BR>
> policy drafting mode - because that creates a situation is untenable <BR>
> conflict of interest in gauging of consensus on the new draft.<BR>
><BR>
> If the community wishes a change to policy - let the community draft <BR>
> such - and let it go through the normal process. If the community is <BR>
> incapable of drafting to find common consensus, it stands to reason <BR>
> that there simply IS not consensus that change is required and <BR>
> therefore under the rules as clearly defined the status quo shall remain.<BR>
><BR>
> Andrew<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: Barrack Otieno [mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com]<BR>
> Sent: 21 March 2017 06:57<BR>
> To: Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com><BR>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd@afrinic.net><BR>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue<BR>
><BR>
> Dear Alan and Co-Chairs,<BR>
><BR>
> Many thanks for the summary of the progress made. It is unfortunate <BR>
> that we have reached a deadlock, i still hope that the authors can <BR>
> reconsider their stands and agree to work together in the Interest of <BR>
> the African Internet Community. In the absence of that it is my humble <BR>
> suggestion that we proceed as suggested by the co-chairs focusing on <BR>
> incorporating proposals that have already been agreed on as well as the ones on which we have rough consensus.<BR>
><BR>
> Best Regards<BR>
><BR>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:<BR>
>> Hi<BR>
>><BR>
>> We have no opinions in this debate.<BR>
>><BR>
>> However, as member of AFRINIC, we would appreciate an workable <BR>
>> policy, easy for both technical people as well as management to <BR>
>> understand, to implement, at minimum cost both for AFRINIC as well as for member.<BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 03:25 Dewole Ajao <dewole@forum.org.ng> wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Thanks, Alan. The "version control" snapshot will serve as a <BR>
>>> reminder to co-chairs not to fiddle with the document while it is <BR>
>>> under consideration.<BR>
>>> :)<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Dewole.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos and autocorrect <BR>
>>> strangeness.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> > On 20 Mar 2017, at 7:55 PM, Alan Barrett <BR>
>>> > <alan.barrett@afrinic.net><BR>
>>> > wrote:<BR>
>>> ><BR>
>>> ><BR>
>>> >> On 20 Mar 2017, at 22:24, SamiSalih <sami@ntc.gov.sd> wrote:<BR>
>>> >> The extracts from discussions till date are at <BR>
>>> >> <a href="https://goo.gl/AWCCWd" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/AWCCWd</a> and we would like to receive feedback and<BR>
>>> >> suggestions from the community over the next 7 days.<BR>
>>> ><BR>
>>> > For the record, here’s a snapshot in PDF format of the document as <BR>
>>> > it exists today.<BR>
>>> ><BR>
>>> > Alan Barrett<BR>
>>> ><BR>
>>> > <Soft-landing Making Progress.pdf> <BR>
>>> > _______________________________________________<BR>
>>> > RPD mailing list<BR>
>>> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><BR>
>>> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>>> RPD mailing list<BR>
>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><BR>
>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><BR>
>><BR>
>><BR>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>> RPD mailing list<BR>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><BR>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><BR>
>><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> --<BR>
> Barrack O. Otieno<BR>
> +254721325277<BR>
> +254733206359<BR>
> Skype: barrack.otieno<BR>
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A<BR>
><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> RPD mailing list<BR>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><BR>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> ________________________________<BR>
> This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered <BR>
> safely by Mimecast.<BR>
> For more information please visit <a href="http://www.mimecast.com" target="_blank">http://www.mimecast.com</a><BR>
> ________________________________<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Barrack O. Otieno<BR>
+254721325277<BR>
+254733206359<BR>
Skype: barrack.otieno<BR>
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A<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>