<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 12, 2020, at 12:58 , Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" class="">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:20 AM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></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;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 6, 2020, at 06:00 , gregoire.ehoumi via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Hi Nishal,<br class=""><br class="">I am glad to finally see some conversations on these topics and thanks for your contributions.<br class=""><br class="">The RPD is indeed the appropriate forum to discuss these issues as it is directly related to the management, distribution and usage of the INRs.<br class=""><br class="">Your reaction to the cochairs unbelievable decision on the AS0 ROAs proposal did not go unnoticed and I see you mentioning AS0 ROA as one of the solution to the problem being discussed here, as relates to continued routing of <b class="">hijacked prefixes</b> as bogons.<br class=""><br class="">How could one understand the Co-Chairs decision about the AS0 ROA in this context without giving the impression that the rot has set in and that there seems to exist some cover-up game going on?</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don’t see rot or a coverup here. I see a good faith effort to do the job as described in the PDP and bylaws.</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If memory servers, not so long ago, a group that vehemently opposed the "abuse contacts" proposal, failed to work out a consensual proposal on "review of resource usage" and is now opposing the "AS0 ROA" by AfriNIC on unallocated/unassigned space, will have to do more than just "good faith effort" to convince this working group and the world on his seriousness about his stewardship responsibility on number resources. <br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Huh?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I don’t see the group that vehemently opposed “review of resource usage” as being the same group that is now opposing “AS0 ROA”.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Nor do I see that as having any relationship to the current decision by the co-chairs on the “AS0 ROA” proposal.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m saying that from my perspectives, even though I disagree with their decision, I feel that the co-chairs acted in good faith in coming to that decision.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">This is especially true given the continued negative press towards AfriNIC’s disregard of her stewardship.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Who are you referring to about “his stewardship responsibility”? There are (to the beset of my knowledge) two co-chairs involved in this decision. Are you saying that you believe they both acted in bad faith? That’s a pretty serious allegation. Do you have anything to back it up?</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">Are we refusing to see and confront the facts ? We seem to have a big elephant in the room…. <br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>If there’s an elephant, I’m having trouble seeing it. The “resource review” decision which was appealed was an incorrect action by the co-chairs as determined by the appeals committee. That was a case where they declared consensus when there were multiple clear voices expressing opposition.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you believe that the co-chairs acted incorrectly here (I do not), then you should start an appeal. However, here we have a much less clear-cut case. IMHO, the objections raised were adequately addressed. The co-chairs determined differently. It was a judgment call. Not the judgment call I would have made, but one I can understand given the fact pattern that exists.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>