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

[Alan Barrett]

I am in broad agreement with SM's message (quoted below).

Considering these three possibilities ...

> (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.

I'd re-phrase (b) as

   (b)  The Interim co-chairs take note of the lack of consensus, but
        issue a last call anyway, as a formality in order to comply with
        the procedure.

and I'd add an option (d):

   (d)  The Interim co-chairs, noting the obvious lask of consensus,
        choose not to issue a Last Call.

My own opinion has vacillated between (b) and (d), but I have 
agreed with SM that we execute option (b), issuing a last call as 
soon as the correct version of the proposal is available.

I predict with high confidence that, after the last call, I will 
find that there is no consensus for the proposal as written.  The 
next step would be for the proposal (or a modified version of it) 
to be discussed again at the AfriNIC-15 meeting in Dar es Salaam 
(in June 2011).

--apb (Alan Barrett)
Interim co-chair, AfriNIC Policy Development Working Group

(no new text below this point)

On Thu, 05 May 2011, 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
>        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