<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/18 4:28 PM, Timothy Ola
Akinfenwa wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL1GxKS7aFbx6MDMfvngxU-ptC2xQSqeBpD2RQ6_WMGwtGhyLQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">+1 Nishal, this clarification was indeed necessary
and helped a great deal.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL1GxKS7aFbx6MDMfvngxU-ptC2xQSqeBpD2RQ6_WMGwtGhyLQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">One of the objections that slightly align to my
thoughts were seen asked or raised by someone recently. It can
be found here, <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008642.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008642.html</a></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The issue of data corruption and lack of
documentation is a recent development that was made to fore
just few days ago, at least I never knew that existed and I'm
are still waiting for clarification, but this time from
AFRINIC not the authors.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My understanding is that the Data corruption happened in or
around 2010. I became a Board Member from around AfriNIC-10
(Cairo) in 2009 and was a Board Member for 6 years until June 2015
- after AfriNIC-15 in Tunis/Tunisia. I never heard about the data
loss until last week (end of November, 2018).<br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL1GxKS7aFbx6MDMfvngxU-ptC2xQSqeBpD2RQ6_WMGwtGhyLQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I know a few were claiming the financial
implications of implementing this policy will be huge on
AFRINIC and impracticable. However, I made a comment on the
list that I'm sure staff assessment must have covered and
clarified this position. If this was already stated in the
RSA, then it was only logical that the necessary budget be
made to accommodate it, simple IMHO. Therefore, I don't see
this as an issue but the authors are free to clear any doubts
on that, may be.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">More so, I saw some comments and suggestions
made via Staff Assessment on the last Draft 06 of the
proposal. I will like to confirm if and how the comments were
accomodated in the proposal, yet without any update to it
since April.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">At this point, let me mention that the
sentiments and emotions shown here are unnecessary. There
should be no need for any name calling either. Let every
opposer of this policy articulate their objections together
and clearly state them here or just point the community and
authors to where they have been previously raised but not
addressed, then we can move forward from there.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best!</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ti</></div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 2:53 PM Nishal Goburdhan <<a
href="mailto:nishal@controlfreak.co.za"
moz-do-not-send="true">nishal@controlfreak.co.za</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 3 Dec
2018, at 13:24, Daniel Yakmut wrote:<br>
<br>
daniel,<br>
<br>
> This clearly showed that the<br>
> authors of the Review Policy do not care about any input
from the <br>
> community.<br>
<br>
the sentence above is unnecessary. we understand this is an
emotive <br>
subject, but please try to debate the issue(s), and not the
person.<br>
<br>
<br>
> From the last date of submission, it means nothing was
considered by <br>
> the<br>
> authors from input made in Dakar meeting.<br>
<br>
that could be better re-written as: we have confirmation that
no <br>
changes were made to the policy, to accommodate any of the
potential <br>
outcomes from dakar.<br>
<br>
now, that’s not quite the same as saying they did not consider
<br>
changes; just that _no action_ was made on those
considerations ;-) <br>
but more on that below.<br>
<br>
<br>
> This means the policy remained as is without any input or
review for <br>
> over<br>
> six months.<br>
<br>
we have confirmation that this is correct.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Making it stale and should have been dicarded.<br>
<br>
this is incorrect. policies can be unchanged for up to a
year. <br>
sometimes, it takes a while to gather information, for <br>
presentation/action.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have
allowed the <br>
> policy<br>
> come.up.for discussion in Tunisia.<br>
<br>
no. the co-chairs did not err in allowing discussion; there
is no <br>
break from the rules of the PDP.<br>
<br>
<br>
i believe that, in the absence of changes to accommodate any
outcomes <br>
from dakar, this should not have gone to last call.<br>
there’s a very human understanding that:<br>
# if something is broken, and<br>
# if nothing changes to fix it, then<br>
# the original thing can still considered broken<br>
and i think that there are many people on the list that might
simply <br>
have viewed the current version of the policy in this manner.<br>
<br>
<br>
but, this all predicates that there _were_ actual outcomes in
dakar. <br>
the policy did not get passed in dakar, but were there
recommendations, <br>
or salient discussions on the mailing list, for the authors to
address, <br>
that were not actioned? because, if there _are_ material
problems that <br>
were recorded and acknowledged (at least by the community) and
not <br>
addressed, then sure, there’s no case for last call. but if
there <br>
were no material objections in dakar, and the policy was sent
back just <br>
for more discussion, then who knows, perhaps the last call for
this <br>
version is warranted.<br>
<br>
here’s a different example - there was an update proposed to
the <br>
SL-policy, and the co-chairs sent this back to the mailing
list for more <br>
discussion. there were no material objections (and, even
though i <br>
posted a question about this, that’s _not_ an objection), and
if this <br>
comes up for discussion again at the next meeting, it would be
incorrect <br>
to say that simply because it’s unchanged, it can’t be
considered <br>
for last call. (please don’t detract in anything other than
it being <br>
“unchanged”)<br>
<br>
so, to those that are saying that there’s still a problem, can
you <br>
please rather cite an example of an existing
action/update/request that <br>
remains unanswered, instead of simply saying: “i don’t
agree”. <br>
because that’s something the co-chairs can work with.<br>
<br>
—n.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ftth.posix.co.za">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>