<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hi Owen, see inline <br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 10 juin 2019 à 17:27, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 10, 2019, at 02:24 , Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com" target="_blank">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Owen,<br><br>Thanks for the quick review and thanks for spending your time to review and comment on the unnecessary, duplicative, Ill-advised proposal.<br><br>We appreciate your comments and suggestions and will consider them.<br><br>Even though, there is no room for the acknowledgment session in the CPM, it remains a good way to acknowledge effort and contribution of people throughout the proposal lifecycle.Same remark applies to the authors who are not also listed in the CPM. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, but move it out of the proposed policy section of the proposal.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmmm. <br>Why is this suddenly so important? it has been there since version 3.0 of the proposal.<br><br>Have you found another substantive objection? do you have an issue with those listed there or concerned for those not listed? <br><br>This objection will be addressed and accommodated. Section 4.0 will be removed.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">We continue to disagree on definition of “community” and “ consensus” and I expect the PDP to be followed to determine the future of this proposal.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I expect the PDP to be followed, too. That is why I ask that the authors recognize the lack fo consensus and let it expire or withdraw it.</div><div><br></div><div>The community is the set of all natural persons who are interested in participating in the policy process and possess an email address which they can utilize for that purpose. Do you disagree with this definition?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The disagreement on community came from your claim of “complete lack community consensus”. We have seen the opposite and wonder which “community” were you referring to.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><br></div><div>As to consensus, I am following the IETF definition of rough consensus wherein all remaining objections have been addressed and there is wide support within the community for the proposal.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IETF consensus calls for all objections to be addressed and not necessary accommodated.<br>Consensus is a path and not a destination and looking at it as a destination takes you to the voting mentality which you are showing below by comparing number of "dissenters" to "supporters".</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><br></div><div>Given that you have at least a roughly equal number of dissenters and supporters and that the number of dissenters seems to be growing rather than shrinking, I would argue that the authors have most definitely failed to achieve anything resembling rough consensus with this policy.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I know you as ARIN AC member, but not AFRINIC PDWG co-chair. Why are you trying to play co-chair? Co-chairs have been elected to lead the process including the consensus path.<br>Where did you get these numbers from? Are you counting those who are recruited to say “ I oppose with no new arguments”?<br>The IETF rough consensus clearly stated that objection or support is not based on volume or persistence. <br><br>Let assume a second that your numbers were correct. Can't you see that in the case of “rough equal numbers”, you can’t say “complete lack of community consensus” ? <br>At least, What one would expect in this kind of split situation, is that co-chairs facilitate the discussion for the concerns raised to be accommodated or reasons for not accommodating them explained further.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><br></div><div>If you feel that I am wrong about this, please explain what measure of “community” and what measure of “consensus” you are using. Perhaps you can educate me as to where my definitions do not match the PDP.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I hope the above clarify </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Arnaud<br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><br><br>Arnaud </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le dim. 9 juin 2019 à 15:58, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>I have reviewed the diff and have the following comments. I limit my review and my comments to the scope of the proposed policy text. I have made no effort to address anything outside of the proposal itself other than to say that at least according to the Diff, the numbering of the non-policy sections got badly screwed up at the beginning.<div><br><div><br></div><div>1.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>It does not appear to address any of my previous objections.</div><div>2.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>13.3.1 should read “…have not been” rather than “…has not been”. (has would be for a singular, whereas the use her is plural)</div><div>3.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>While the structure in 13.3.2 is cleaned up, there is no material change to the proposal here.</div><div>4.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>13.3.3 retains all of its original problems as previously described by many, myself included.</div><div>5.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Section 13.4 Line 51, I must ask how addresses can be found to be non-compliant. I suggest instead that the grammar be cleaned up as follows:</div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:medium none;padding:0px"><div>AfriNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process to reclaim sufficient resources to restore resource holder to compliance.</div></blockquote>6.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>13.4 in general is awkwardly structured and not in a logical order. Consequences defined at the beginning of the section fit better after the rules spelled out in A) and B), for example.<div>7.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>13.5 “Results on the review” should be “Results of the review”.</div><div>8.<span class="gmail-m_8430196260645579531gmail-m_4186325958573124471Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The acknowledgements are ill-conceived and have no place in the CPM. If the authors wish to acknowledge these people, they are free to do so wherever they wish, but said acknowledgement is not legitimate policy and has no place being inserted into the CPM.</div><div><br></div></div><div>In summary, this update does nothing to address concerns previously expressed. It does appear to clean up some of the previous grammatical and syntactic errors, but it also introduces new ones. This proposal remains unnecessary, duplicative, harmful, and ill-advised. I again urge the authors to withdraw it based on the complete lack fo community consensus and their utter unwillingness to make changes that address the actual issues.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></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></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div></div>