[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Section 5.3 of PDP

Tue May 3 16:43:05 UTC 2011

Hi Mukom,

This leaves me with a concern, because it means that based on the timing
of the next F2F meeting, there is no way that this can be discussed in
Tanzania, and should this NOT be discussed in Tanzania, and consensus is
NOT reached at last call, it gets pushed out by months waiting for the
next F2F.  Considering the rapid depletion of IPv4 world wide and the
fact that aspects of this policy are designed to STOP the pillaging of
V4 resources by the rest of the world, there is a chance that delaying
such an F2F discussion of this policy could be to the regions severe
detriment.

While as I have stated many times, I am opposed to certain portions of
this policy, I am also keenly aware that the rest of the policy is
needed and needs to be brought into being with a matter of urgency
considering the current rates of depletion.

Therefore, I would ask that considering we already have one region in
soft landing, and this is becoming such a critical issue, if we could
not consider invoking section 7 of the PDP to get this back on the
agenda in Dar Es Salaam.

Thanks

Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On
> Behalf Of Mukom Akong T
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:12 PM
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Section 5.3 of PDP
> 
> 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 be considered withdrawn, or should be modified and consensus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 elandsys.com [mailto:sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]
> >> 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 afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> >
> 
> --
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------
> Mukom Akong T.
> Training Manager & Policy Liaison
> www.afrinic.net | p: +230 403 5100   |   f: +230 466 6758
> Skype/Twitter: perfexcellent   | LinkedIn:
> mu.linkedin.com/in/perfexcellent
> 
> "When you work you are a flute through whose heart the whispering of
> the
> hours turns to music."
> 
>                                                   - Kahlil Gibran
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd