<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div id="compose-container" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/EmailMessage" style="direction:ltr">
<span itemprop="creator" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schema.org/Organization"><span itemprop="name"></span></span>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Ali,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Your email makes an assumption that respect of the community is agreeing with something which we fundamentally disagree with.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Our respect was demonstrated when we withdraw our policy - and our opposition to tightening the restrictions in the current policy remain for all the many reasons stated on the floor previously.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">When I get a bit of time later I will write something that reiterates every single objection that was stated on the floor over a 2 year period, including multiple requests to withdraw this policy from the floor - which have never
been addressed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">This appeal however does not revolve around the substance of the policy - it revolves around procedure and the fact that the definition of consensus is clear - and could not be declared with the way things were sitting. On the substantive
policy issues - those we will deal with in parallel through the last call process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">Andrew </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="acompli_signature">Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> ALI Hadji Mmadi <alihadji90@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 1, 2017 1:09:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Andrew Alston<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Afrinic RPD<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Softlanding-Bis decision appeal</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Hi Andrew<br>
I hope you are doing well.<br>
Reagrding your email, I thing in this case we do not need a<br>
parliamentary group to make a bloc. we need clear and objective ideas.<br>
Following the SL Bis presentation, I realized that the co-authors have<br>
added SL SD ideas. to meet the real need of the community. So instead<br>
of coming together to appeal, I propose that you give cleary your<br>
proposal in order to go ahead in the phase of ratification of the<br>
policy.<br>
A little respect to the community, it is not as clueless as you think it is.<br>
Ali Of Comoros.<br>
<br>
<br>
2017-12-01 9:19 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>:<br>
> Hi All,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Considering the decision to take the soft-landing bis policy into last call<br>
> yesterday – the following individuals wish to state that we are officially<br>
> appealing the decision by the co-chairs in this regard:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Ben Maddison<br>
><br>
> Andrew Alston<br>
><br>
> Mark Elkins<br>
><br>
> Christopher Mwangi<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Over the last 2 years there have been sustained and unaddressed objections<br>
> to this policy. There have been multiple requests by this community to<br>
> withdraw this policy. There was a statement by the authors in Mauritius<br>
> that the policy would be withdrawn that was reneged. The list archives<br>
> clearly show that there was – and remains opposition to this policy. The<br>
> rules of the PDP are clear – consensus is not based on what is said at the<br>
> floor of the meeting alone, but is derived from the sum total of comments<br>
> and objections both on the floor and the lists – and includes any objections<br>
> that are sustained and unaddressed.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> While we are happy to engage with the chairs on this issue in the public<br>
> forum that is this list – we also see little hope of resolution without<br>
> going to the formal appeal committee should the chairs not decide to reverse<br>
> their decision, which we believe was taken in error.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> We also welcome any other individuals who wish to add their names to this<br>
> appeal – and note that individuals wishing to do so, by the appeal process,<br>
> are free to join the appeal process irrespective of their comments or lack<br>
> of comments on the policy to date – since the appeal surrounds procedural<br>
> error – rather than the content of the specific policy itself.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Further emails will follow in due course detailing the objections raised on<br>
> the list and the floor of previous meetings that have never been addressed,<br>
> and we will clearly demonstrate the error that was made in the consensus<br>
> declaration.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Further to this – any of the appellants reserve the right to continue to<br>
> contribute during the last call for the duration of the appeal and may<br>
> continue to state their objections during the last call – so that in the<br>
> event of this appeal failing – and consensus in last call being declared –<br>
> the ground work is laid for a second appeal.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Yours Sincerely<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Andrew Alston<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> RPD@afrinic.net<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>