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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Section 3.8 of AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-02 - IPv4 Soft Landing

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon May 23 14:15:31 UTC 2011

On May 23, 2011, at 4:03 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:05 +0200, Dr Paulos Nyirenda wrote:
>> Mark,
>> Your argument on "non-African based entity" raises the issue on the definition or 
>> restriction of the word "community" that is very pertinent in the AfriNIC PDP policy.
>> The current understanding, at least as resolved by the previous PDPMG and as defined as 
>> the PDP Working Group (PDPWG) in the current AfriNIC PDP with respect to the RPD process 
>> is that the global Internet community is defined as the "community" here, it includes 
>> "any person".
>> See Section 4 of
> Quoting what seems to apply from the above link...
>        The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the
>        proposals. Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person.
>        The work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion
>        mailing list (RPD) and the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). Any
>        person, participating either in person or remotely, is
>        considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group.
> I've no problem with this - for example, how else would global polices
> ever get to us. From a Policy point of view - people from outside our
> region often have very good input, advice and practical experience. No
> problem.

I agree with you and I believe all 5 RIRs welcome participation in their
PDPs from around the world. I'm actively involved in the PDPs in
at least 3 regions (ARIN/APNIC/AfriNIC) and have attended and
participated in policy development meetings in all 5 myself.

However, to answer your question about global policies, they are,
technically, brought to each region by the ASO AC representatives
from that region.

>> So, the issue of a "non-African based entity" being marginalised in your argument should 
>> not arise here as you seem to indicate, it runs against the principles of the AFRINIC 
>> PDP, see Section 3 of the PDP policy.
> "Openness, transparency and fairness" - I guess you are referring to...
>        3.1 Openness
>        All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may
>        participate. There are no qualifications for participation.
> I've no problem with this either - unless "participation" by people not
> from the AfriNIC region allows "them" to harm "us". Maybe "they" should
> not always be invited to "show consensus" (vote)???  Ponder this a
> while.

I think that for the most part, we've had good luck allowing people to
self-select on this issue. I know that when I am representing ARIN
as an AC member at other RIR policy meetings, I will not vote, but,
I do feel free to speak my mind on the issues.

When I attend one of the RIR policy meetings through other means,
then, I will usually not vote, but, sometimes will vote on certain issues
I believe are important to my employer's interest within the region
(my employer has deployments in 3 of the RIR regions and actually
provides transit services to at least 2 of the RIRs themselves).

> Whilst I was at ARIN a few weeks ago - participating in their Policy
> discussions - I didn't always put up my hand to "show consensus" - I
> didn't always feel it appropriate. (Might be wrong - but there was no
> voting at ARIN - just a demonstration of "consensus" as a guide to the
> AC (Advisory Council))

It is a vote, but, the vote is advisory in nature and is used to show advice
to the AC of the consensus of the community (or lack thereof) and, in
some cases, direction in which the AC should move to further improve
the policy under consideration towards consensus.

I believe this is similar to the effect of the voting I have observed at
the PPM/PDP-WG meetings in other regions.


More information about the RPD mailing list