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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Consensus call ??? on Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Thu May 5 18:30:57 UTC 2011

Hi Paulos,
At 05:38 05-05-2011, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:
>Please clarify what a "Consensus call" is with respect to the AFRINIC PDP?
>If such a call is not in the PDP then why is such a call being made here?

The first version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" was submitted on 
5 January, 2009.  It did not reach consensus during the AfriNIC-10 
Public Policy Meeting.  It did not reach consensus during the 
AfriNIC-11 Public Policy Meeting.  The proposal "gathered consensus 
but with a few amendments" at the AfriNIC-12 Public Policy Meeting. 
There was consensus during the AfriNIC-13 Public Policy Meeting after 
changes or clarifications were suggested.

Several issues about the Softlanding proposal have been raised since 
the last AfriNIC meeting.  There has been some controversy about 
Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.  Some of the alternatives are:

  (a)  The Interim co-chairs remain quiet and leave it to author of the
       proposal to figure out a way to move the discussion forward.

  (b)  The Interim co-chairs ignore the issues and initiate the
       Last Call.

  (c)  The Interim co-chairs work with the author of the proposal
       and the Policy Development Working Group participants to
       help resolve the points of contention and see whether
       consensus can be attained.

Alternative (a) is less work for me.  Alternative (b) is also less 
work for me.  If I misunderstood the different views, please correct me:

  (i)    McTim is of the view that there is consensus on

  (ii)   Dr Paulos Nyirenda is of the view that there isn't consensus on

  (iii)  James Blessing is of the view that there isn't consensus on

  (iv)   Andrew Alston is of the view that there isn't consensus on

  (v)    Graham Beneke is of the view that there isn't consensus on

Let's assume that after the Last Call it is determined that 
AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 did not gain consensus.  The co-chairs 
might send the proposal back to the list for discussion and wait for 
a future AfriNIC Public Policy Meeting to have another face to face 
discussion of the proposal.  There is another Last Call after 
that.  The proposal can go from one Last Call to another until it is 
overcome by events.

Alternative (c) does not mean that the proposal will gain 
consensus.  It can be viewed as a path out of an endless loop by 
fostering a discussion to address the concerns raised by Policy 
Development Working Group participants.  One of the ways to get the 
view of the Policy Development Working Group for the outcome on an 
issue is by a determination of consensus.  If I am not mistaken, that 
is also done during AfriNIC Public Policy Meetings.

McTim asked "why are we breaking it up into sections".  The section 
numbering is mentioned so that it is easier to track which parts of a 
proposal is being discussed.  The content of the message identifies 
one issue, in this case, a sentence in  Section 3.8 of

I could not find anything which is not in line with the Policy 
Development Process.

S. Moonesamy
Interim co-chair, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group 

More information about the RPD mailing list