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

Section 5.3 of PDP (was: [AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online)

Dr Paulos Nyirenda paulos at
Mon May 9 09:51:36 UTC 2011

SM, Andrew,

Looks like one more major item that points to the dire need to revise the current AfriNIC 
PDP. The ambiguity is not just at the end of the Last Call period but also at the point 
where the policy is sent to the Board for approval. These have been discussed in the past 
but were not attended to before the AfriNIC Board approved this PDP policy.

The procedure in the previous policy was that if a proposal failed to get consensus at 
the Last Call then the proposal would go back to the RPD mailing list. It did NOT go to 
the next face to face meeting as is being proposed here - it went to the RPD list for 
further discussion and/or revision.

Refereing a proposal to the RPD is probably the best way forward, even in this case.

Once again, there is urgent need to revise the current PDP that was hurriedly approved in 
2010, can the current interim PDP co-chairs initiate it?


Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD

On 3 May 2011 at 10:07, sm+afrinic at wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> At 09:02 03-05-2011, Andrew Alston wrote:
> >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.
> It's premature to discuss this as the Last Call has not started 
> yet.  I made of a note of your request though.
> >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be considered withdrawn, or should be modified and consensus requested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.
> The author already have the ability to take the proposal back to a 
> public policy meeting even though there isn't any explicit text in 
> the PDP that says so.  I suggest that you ask the ex-PDPMG about the 
> details surrounding AFPUB-2010-GEN-007.
> Based on my short experience as co-chair, I'll say that whatever you 
> put in the PDP, it won't be much of a change unless there are enough 
> people willing to put in the time and effort to do the work.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy 
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list