Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: Consensus call ??? on Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing
Dr Paulos Nyirenda
paulos at sdnp.org.mw
Mon May 9 09:51:36 UTC 2011
I think I asked a simple question and I am concerned to see from your reply that you are
going around PDP co-chair mandates to find a solution.
There is no such thing like a "Consensus call" in the AfriNIC PDP and I really doubt if
PDP co-chairs have the mandate to make such a call.
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
On 5 May 2011 at 11:30, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> 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