<div><div dir="auto">Hi</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes, it might be good to have face saving and not have an appeal—except we have done that last time and Many hoped the chairs will learn—just like Owen said it—they just didn’t learn.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So this time it need to be done properly, the decision was an error, the pdp was not followed, therefore the decision will need to be overturned so that we can hope next time pdp are properly followed.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It’s not personal in any way, just the PDP not followed by the chairs, if chair or anyone think the pdp need to be modified or updated to a more voting based system—please propose, until then, the current process need to be followed, and especially by the chairs.</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 17:26 ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Dear all, <div>I have followed this issue on <span style="font-size:12.8px">AfriNIC Soft Landing </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Policy since it began last weekend.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">It seems like an interesting conversation at first then it became an issue that would not go away, then the name calling. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I think I do agree totally with </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">Christian. The last call does not mean its now a policy. There is absolutely no need for an appeal. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I think an appeal is only necessary after it becomes a policy. I would suggest we channel our energy into raising issues on why it should or should not be a policy rather than an appeal. </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Thank you </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">Abdulkarim</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:32 PM, <span><<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing<br>
Policy (Lu Heng)<br>
2. Re: FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing<br>
Policy (Owen DeLong)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 22:58:14 +0800<br>
From: Lu Heng <<a href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com" target="_blank">h.lu@anytimechinese.com</a>><br>
To: Mark Elkins <<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">mje@posix.co.za</a>><br>
Cc: rpd <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft<br>
Landing Policy<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAAvCx3j+4urDxOiivY+JtDTViwZMs63yU_AXdvrpi=<a href="mailto:ZF-2nfxA@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">ZF-2nfxA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi Mark:<br>
<br>
While I agree with you almost all your words, but I think it is good to<br>
test the appeal process, so next time, if there is clearly no consensus<br>
amount community, a room of people can not pass a policy without addressing<br>
major objections from the mailing list.<br>
<br>
And frankly, I see no hope for an acceptable resolution(a.k.a rough<br>
consensus) can be found both for this soft landing policy as well as the<br>
review policy due to huge ideology difference amount the communities.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 6 December 2017 at 22:16, Mark Elkins <<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">mje@posix.co.za</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> For the Record - I am against this Soft Landing Proposal.<br>
><br>
> Having said that,<br>
><br>
> The way that I understand the policy proposal system to work is: (and I've<br>
> done a few myself, some passed, some didn't)<br>
><br>
> 1) Some one or group of people make a policy proposal. They send it to the<br>
> PDP Co-Chairs and get a proper reference No for it and its posted to the<br>
> PDP Mailing list.<br>
><br>
> 2) The Policy is discussed on the list and the policy is (if necessary)<br>
> refined. People indicate whether they support the policy or not and suggest<br>
> changes if appropriate. *I believe this is where the bulk of work should<br>
> happen.* This is usually the case in other regions.<br>
><br>
> 3) At the next AFRINIC meeting (assuming that the policy has been in<br>
> circulation long enough - something like four weeks) - the policy is<br>
> further presented to the community members who are there. More exchange of<br>
> ideas can happen here - but it should be understood that only a fraction of<br>
> the PDP mailing list participants will be in the room. At the end of the<br>
> discussion period the PDP Co-Chairs try and gauge consensus (actually -<br>
> this should be an ongoing thing, bringing into account what happened on the<br>
> mailing lists before the meeting as well as in the discussion period in the<br>
> room). If they feel that a rough consensus has been reached - they move the<br>
> policy to "Last Call". If not - the policy reverts to the mailing list.<br>
><br>
> 4) Once Policy is in Last Call - as long as there are no substantial<br>
> objections - the policy will be sent to the Board for ratification. This is<br>
> usually a "Rubber Stamp" affair - unless there is something harmful in the<br>
> policy towards the Company.<br>
><br>
> 5) If there are no updates to the policy in about a year(?) - the policy<br>
> is withdrawn. The authors can also withdraw at any time.<br>
><br>
> That's the generalisation of the current process.<br>
><br>
> The appeal process is what I understand can be brought about if a policy<br>
> passes Last Call yet still has very unhappy people. I'd say that Andrew is<br>
> getting ready for an appeal - because the appeal process is new - never<br>
> been used - so is getting his ducks in a row. Right now - I sense that<br>
> enough people are objecting to this policy that it won't get past Last<br>
> Call, thus the Appeal Process will not be tested.<br>
> We've seen this before, Sunday (our esteemed Chair Person) and one other<br>
> proposed a policy for universities - so they could get IPv4 address space<br>
> easier. Before the meeting - this had very positive support. At the meeting<br>
> (in Lusaka, Zambia) it passed to last call - but got shot down by (as I<br>
> remember) a small but vocal handful of people. I still think this was a<br>
> dumb thing to happen - but anyway.<br>
><br>
> I think also at AFRINIC that we have created a culture that if this policy<br>
> is proposed by X - then it must be bad. That is a very unhealthy culture<br>
> and, to coin a phrase, cutting your nose off to spite your face. Best<br>
> example of this is the "Inward bound international transfer" policy.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 06/12/2017 11:07, Christian Ahiauzu wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please<br>
> put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if<br>
> there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my<br>
> postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at<br>
> this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the<br>
> board.<br>
><br>
> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for<br>
> invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further<br>
> objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost<br>
> here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal<br>
> process.<br>
><br>
> BR<br>
> Christian.<br>
> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I had<br>
>>> to look up who the chairs actually are...<br>
>>><br>
>>> I believe that this page shows: <a href="https://afrinic.net/en/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/en/</a><br>
>>> community/policy-development/pdwg<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. Dewole Ajao<br>
>>><br>
>> 2. Sami Salih<br>
>><br>
>> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.<br>
>><br>
>> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with<br>
>> their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.<br>
>><br>
>> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy, please<br>
>> end this discussion and start a new one!<br>
>><br>
>> Kind thanks<br>
>><br>
>> Alan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> RPD mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing listRPD@afrinic.nethttps://<a href="http://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) <a href="mailto:Africamje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">Africamje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 <+27%2012%20807%200590> Cell: +27.826010496 <+27%2082%20601%200496><br>
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a href="https://ftth.posix.co.za" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
--<br>
Kind regards.<br>
Lu<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/734dded9/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/734dded9/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 07:30:51 -0800<br>
From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
To: Christian Ahiauzu <<a href="mailto:christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng" target="_blank">christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng</a>><br>
Cc: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft<br>
Landing Policy<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:21B969AB-5393-4522-81F8-BB831B8C55D8@delong.com" target="_blank">21B969AB-5393-4522-81F8-BB831B8C55D8@delong.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Christian,<br>
<br>
As others have stated, while this got kicked back to the list as a proper outcome of the last call,<br>
like the Review proposal, this should never have gone to last call in the first place. It was clear<br>
that there was significant sustained objection prior to the declaration of consensus. Said objections<br>
were never addressed in both cases. Thus, neither policy met the definition of rough consensus and<br>
in both cases, the co-chairs erred in declaring consensus.<br>
<br>
The first time, an appeal was suggested, but not followed through in the hopes that the co-chairs<br>
would learn from the experience and not make the same mistake again. Now that they have repeated<br>
the same mistake, there is a remaining concern that the co-chairs are not following the PDP and<br>
we hope that the review will get things back on track.<br>
<br>
It is vital to the integrity of the process that the co-chairs feel bound by it and that they<br>
not declare consensus where it clearly does not exist. Consensus is not the tyranny of the majority<br>
as many seem to be advocating.<br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 05:55 , Christian Ahiauzu <<a href="mailto:christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng" target="_blank">christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Lu,<br>
><br>
> I understand where you are coming from. But like you noted, the Internet number resources review policy has gone back to the mailing list from the final call status. Meaning, that the process of "checking again" works.<br>
><br>
> If we think that the current PDP is flawed, then, it cannot be repaired by an Appeal process. Rather, just like some community members are currently doing, we solve that problem using a policy update or total change of an existing policy. The AfriNIC Policy Development Process BIS, I believe noticed the flawed nature of our PDP and is trying to solve the problems using a policy. If an appeal process was not called, the current objections to the IPv4 Soft Landing -BIS policy might still send it back to the mailing list and its status is stepped down. Now, with the appeal, it will still yield the same result but in a different way. But will this appeal stop other policies from entering into final call "prematurely"?.<br>
><br>
> I really think the appeal at this point was not called for, with due respect to all parties involved.<br>
><br>
> BR<br>
> Christian.<br>
><br>
> On Dec 6, 2017 10:23 AM, "Lu Heng" <<a href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com" target="_blank">h.lu@anytimechinese.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com" target="_blank">h.lu@anytimechinese.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> Hi Christian:<br>
><br>
> Because there is one huge problem need to be fixed here.<br>
><br>
> The chair declared consensus on the floor without considering t there are major objections in the mailing list in which was not addressed yet.<br>
><br>
> It is not the first time, it happened last time with the review policy as well.(and possibly many other policies that I am not aware of)<br>
><br>
> Both review and the soft landing policy, there is ideology difference between community members that just too big to be considered mirror objections.<br>
><br>
> Just because some bring more people to the floor does not mean consensus can be reached without addressing major objections.<br>
><br>
> Even, theoretically, there is one person ideologically disagree with the policy with a sounding argument, if that disagreement cannot be addressed with agreeable resolution, consensus can not be reached, and that is the very definition of the consensus decision making process.<br>
><br>
> If you declaring consensus without considering that one person's ideological difference, you are not reaching consensus, instead, you are bullying that person to ignore the process.<br>
><br>
> So this will need to be fixed here in the PDP, or, we will need to change consensus-based to vote based if that can be possible.<br>
><br>
> On 6 December 2017 at 10:07, Christian Ahiauzu <<a href="mailto:christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng" target="_blank">christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng" target="_blank">christian.ahiauzu@uniport.edu.ng</a>>> wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the board.<br>
><br>
> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal process.<br>
><br>
> BR<br>
> Christian.<br>
><br>
> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a>>> wrote:<br>
> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:alan@futureperfect.co.za" target="_blank">alan@futureperfect.co.za</a>>> wrote:<br>
> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I had to look up who the chairs actually are...<br>
><br>
> I believe that this page shows: <a href="https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg</a> <<a href="https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/pdwg</a>><br>
><br>
> 1. Dewole Ajao<br>
> 2. Sami Salih<br>
><br>
> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.<br>
><br>
> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.<br>
><br>
> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy, please end this discussion and start a new one!<br>
><br>
> Kind thanks<br>
><br>
> Alan<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> --<br>
> Kind regards.<br>
> Lu<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/7e5c0c6d/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171206/7e5c0c6d/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 48<br>
************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="m_-3491108263069407655gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Website</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">, </span><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.app.app4a98472fd6e6" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Android app</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">, </span><a href="http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/university-of-ilorin-mobile/168e5182-0689-4c80-b441-864a4ec39057" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Windows app</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">, </span><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/en/2013-09-02-10-18-35/bulletin-feed" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Weekly Bulletin</a></div><div><br></div>_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>--<br>Kind regards.<br>Lu<br><br></div></div></div>