Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Section 5.3 of PDP

Mukom Akong T tamon at
Tue May 3 16:11:33 UTC 2011

Hello all

On 5/3/11 8:02 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi There,
> Yes, I would like this proposal on the agenda for Dar Es Salaam, as at
> this point, as I say, I do not believe there is currently sufficient
> consensus based on discussions on the list in February.

Just to be clear, this proposal has *NOT YET* gone to Last Call. When it 
does come out of Last Call and the PDWG chairs declare there is no 
consensus, then the author might choose to send in a updated version 
which must be discussed on the mailing list for 4 weeks before it is 
eligible to be discussed at a F2F meeting.

> I still however believe that we need to specify in the PDP that should a
> proposal fail consensus during last call that the proposal should either
> be considered withdrawn, or should be modified and consensus requested
> of the list again, or failing that should go back to a public meeting.
> This should be specified to avoid ambiguity, and it still leaves the
> face saving option of withdrawl or modification open, but it also gives
> the author the ability to take it back to a public meeting should he
> strongly believe in what he is saying and believe that he can advocate
> for it better in person.

As the current PDP is an improvement of two previous ones, you are free 
to make such a proposal.

> Thanks
> Andrew
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sm+afrinic at [mailto:sm+afrinic at]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:54 PM
>> To: Andrew Alston
>> Cc: AfriNIC List
>> Subject: Section 5.3 of PDP (was: [AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the
>> "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online)
>> Hi Andrew,
>> At 06:42 03-05-2011, Andrew Alston wrote:
>>> I have a question about this policy development process.
>> I'll comment as an individual.
>>> As per section 5.3:
>>> A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
>>> Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
>>> mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The
>> Working
>>> Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public
>> Policy
>>> Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has been
>>> achieved.
>>> If consensus is NOT achieved under last call, the current PDP does
> not
>>> explicitly state what occurs.  I would assume that it gets referred
>> back to
>>> another public meeting and the process begins again, am I incorrect
> in
>>> assumption?
>> In another Internet community, someone will say:
>>     "We have discussed this before; nothing has changed since then.
> Why
>> do
>>      you think that the outcome will be different this time?"
>> The current PDP does not state what occurs.  I'll mention two
>> reasons.  From Section 5.1:
>>     "A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is
>>      approved by the AfriNIC Board of Directors as a policy."
>>     "A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a
>>      notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list."
>> The last sentence can be used to describe a face-saving device or to
>> avoid wasting time discussing a proposal when we can guess what the
>> outcome will be.
>> If the author of a proposal believes that it is worthwhile to put
>> back a proposal in the loop, I am fine with that.  That is however
>> not going to happen by default.  I will ask the author of the
>> proposal to explicitly state his preference.
>>> (In fact the current PDP by my reading not only excludes an explicit
>>> statement of what happens if something doesn't pass last call, it is
>>> completely silent on the matter)
>> It is not a good idea to regulate some practices because you end up
>> with rules that do not fit the circumstances.  The PDP is mainly
>> about three principles, openness, transparency and fairness.  Section
>> 6 of the PDP provides you with the means of redress if you believe
>> that the Chairs reached the wrong decision.
>>> If I am correct in this assumption and it is determined that
> consensus
>> has
>>> NOT been reached in last call, can this be moved back into the agenda
>> for
>>> Dar Es Salaam.  I ask this because time is running short, IP space is
>> being
>>> depleted and if this IS going to go back to a public meeting, then it
>> would
>>> make sense for it to do so in Dar Es Salaam, before we end up in a
>> situation
>>> WITHOUT the policy because of lack of consensus under last call and
>> lack of
>>> it being on the Tanzanian agenda.
>> If you want to out this proposal on the agenda for Dar Es Salaam, I
>> am fine with that.
>> This proposal was first submitted in January 2009.  There has been a
>> few revolutions since then, (IANA) IPv4 exhaustion and a Royal
> wedding.
>> Regards,
>> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

Mukom Akong T.
Training Manager & Policy Liaison | p: +230 403 5100   |   f: +230 466 6758
Skype/Twitter: perfexcellent   | LinkedIn:

“When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of the 
hours turns to music.“
                                                  - Kahlil Gibran

More information about the RPD mailing list