> On May 12, 2017, at 02:46 , abel ELITCHA <kmw.elit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mark, > > 2017-05-12 8:42 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <m...@posix.co.za > <mailto:m...@posix.co.za>>: > The "Internet Shutdown" policy has caused discussion around the world. > > Much of an abuse which serves personal agenda.
Can you clarify or substantiate this claim? I’m not seeing it. > This is proof of the multi-stakeholder approach at work (its being argued by > multiple stakeholders, both for and against). The very fact that this policy > has engendered so much debate does not indicate a problem with the policy, > rather, it shows that the process works and is resulting in debate and > discussion that is both constructive and healthy. > > Does AFRINIC PDP seeks general debates and discussions? PDP everywhere has > scope and this debate is clearly out of scope. > You could get your "constructive and healthy " discussions and propoganda > through lists like community-discuss and get slot to present at meetings. This debate is about an address issuance (or not) policy and is therefore very much in scope. You may argue that the larger issue of internet shutdowns are out of scope and that may well be, but a policy which seeks to modify address issuance criteria no matter what those criteria are based on is very much in scope for the PDP. I’m not saying I support the policy or that I think it will achieve its goals if adopted. I’m actually neutral on the policy if not slightly opposed. (Speaking strictly as an individual community member and not in any way representing ARIN, the ARIN AC, my employer, the united States of America or any other group one may wish to lump me in to) However, I simply cannot agree that the policy as written is out of scope no matter how much I question its efficacy or potential for adoption. Owen
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
