<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><div></div><div><br></div><div><br>On May 9, 2018, at 16:07, caleb olumuyiwa <<a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Hello Owen,<div><br></div><div>I strongly object to your submission. If you want a policy process to improve with the interest of the community at heart, i strongly feel that there should be some mid point where those objecting and those proposing can have a middle point that can improve and polish a proposal.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This assumes that the proposal should always advance. It assumes that objections to the concept of the proposal should be ignored and I simply don’t accept that concept. </div><div><br></div><div>It is valid for people to at any point in the process suggest that they do not believe that a proposal is better than the existing policy. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>If there is a valid point of objection and no rough concensus of the PDP, then we can move on to the next good thing.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>How is it invalid to believe that the existing policy is better than the proposal?</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>However, it will be a volountary process for the person objecting to continue to object or volunteer to make suggessions that could improve the proposal of a policy.</div><div><br></div><div>I see no reason why a policy proposal should be abandoned if it has it's merit and is still undergoing refinement based on suggestions from the community and a rough concensus was formed by the co-chairs.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>If you arrive at a point where there are clearly two (or more) substantial factions and one of them is insisting that existing policy is superior to the proposal, then there is unlikely to be consensus and the claim that the proposal has merit is somewhat specious. </div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Caleb Ogundele </div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It is very dangerous and improper in my opinion to require those that object to a policy proposal to provide proposed amendments to the proposal. <br>
<br>
Such a requirement presumes that the proposal is entitled to eventually become policy. Some proposals simply don’t improve current policy and it is perfectly valid to abandon such proposals and opposition to the proposal requesting that the status quo be preserved is an entirely valid position. <br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><b><font size="4" color="#33ccff">Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb</font></b><div><font color="#993300"><i><b><a href="mailto:muyiwacaleb@gmail.com" target="_blank">muyiwacaleb@gmail.com</a></b></i></font></div><div><i><b><font color="#666666">234 - 8077377378</font></b></i></div><div><i><b><font color="#666666">234 - 07030777969</font></b></i></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>