Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Comments about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
Wed Dec 15 02:12:48 UTC 2010
Hello,
These are individual comments about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005. It is meant
to encourage discussion of the process so that the community has a
better understanding of the implementation of AFPUB-2010-GEN-005.
AfriNIC operates the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (RPD)
where policy proposals are discussed, the archive for the mailing
list, and it also provides the resources for running the Public
Policy Meeting. There is currently a Policy Liaison from AfriNIC who
provides administrative support to the two (Interim) Chairs,
including minute taking at Public Policy Meeting.
As mentioned in Section 5, policy proposals are submitted to the
Resource Policy Discussion mailing list by the author. If there are
multiple authors, the proposal can be posted by one of the
authors. During the discussion about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005, that
requirement was requested by the community.
The question of unique identifier for a proposal has been left to
AfriNIC. During the last Public Policy Meeting, I found the
identifiers used for the "Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the
IANA Post Exhaustion" confusing to follow as it jumped from
AFPUB-2010-v4-003 to AFPUB-2010-v4-006. I suggest that AfriNIC comes
up with a better scheme for identifying the different versions of a
proposal for ease of reference.
It would be useful if there was also a policy manual which
incorporates all existing policies.
Section 5.1 mentions that:
"The author(s) shall make the necessary changes to the draft policy
according to the feedback received."
AFPUB-2010-GEN-007 is a case where the author did modify the proposal
based on feedback from the community. If the author of a proposal
does not perform any updates, the proposal expires and is no longer
considered as a proposal to be discussed.
Section 5.2 mentions that:
"No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting.
This is so that a stable version of the draft policy can be considered
at the meeting."
During a discussion about a proposal, it was pointed out that the
community needed more time to determine whether the changes mentioned
by the author is minor or major. When changes are major, the
community may need more time to analyze a proposal.
The rationale for the "no change" is to give the community ample time
to review a proposal and understand its implications. Previously,
authors would make changes to a proposal a few days before a Public
Policy Meeting. According to AFPUB-2010-GEN-005, the author is not
allowed to make such changes. That doesn't prevent the community
from suggesting changes during the Public Policy Meeting. If an
issue is raised, the author can always suggest a change to address it.
Section 5.5 mentions that:
"The implementation date should be less than six months after the end of
the Last Call unless a waiver is requested."
That might be a issue for global policies as it may take longer than
that for them to be approved by all RIRs. It could be solved by
adding a clause to such proposals to specify when they take effect if
they are adopted as a policy within the AfriNIC region.
There was some discussion about using Section 7 to adopt a policy in
the case of an emergency. During the discussions leading to
AFPUB-2010-GEN-005, I argued that it is better not to attempt to
define what constitutes an emergency. I also mentioned during the
last Public Policy Meeting that this clause should not be abused.
Working Group Chairs could use the following procedure:
(a) Ask the author of the proposal or anyone who believes that
Section 7 should
be invoked to post the request to the Resource Policy
Discussion mailing list.
(b) The Working Group Chairs ask the Policy Development Working Group for
substantive comments about the request.
(c) The Working Group Chairs determine whether the variance is
needed and post
a message to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list about their
decision together with an explanation.
AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 does not discuss about the question of conflict
between the two Chairs. I suggest that the Chairs ask the community
for comments to get a better perspective of the problem. The Chairs
bear the responsibility to make the process work and to ensure that
their decisions have the consensus of the community.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
More information about the RPD
mailing list