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

Dr Paulos Nyirenda paulos at
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 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
>          AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
>   (ii)   Dr Paulos Nyirenda is of the view that there isn't consensus on
>          AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
>   (iii)  James Blessing is of the view that there isn't consensus on
>          AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
>   (iv)   Andrew Alston is of the view that there isn't consensus on
>          AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
>   (v)    Graham Beneke is of the view that there isn't consensus on
>          AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
> 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
> AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02.
> I could not find anything which is not in line with the Policy 
> Development Process.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> Interim co-chair, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group 

More information about the RPD mailing list