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

[Owen DeLong]

>> 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))
> 
> If you check the you will see that the word "vote" does not appear in the AfriNIC PDP. 
> The  AfriNIC PDP is based on consensus and not voting. The current counting of who 
> supports and who opposes is painting the wrong picture on how to implement the AfriNIC 
> PDP.
> 

How does one gauge consensus in the absence of some form of voting or without
asking the question of who supports and/or opposes a policy?

I am not taking a position on the merits of different things that can or can't be done
under the PDP and I generally agree with your statement about the current state
of the PDP precluding the marginalization of anyone's participation by geography
or any other mechanism. I'm just trying to understand how you would propose
gauging consensus absent "the current counting of who supports and who
opposes..."

Any other mechanism I can think of would virtually paralyze an organization
with respect to any issue of controversy. In an environment where the status
quo can be maintained, that may be an acceptable outcome. However, in
a situation where one is coming to a fork in the road (as is the case here) and
straight ahead is not an option and the community is divided over whether
to go left or right, failure to act may be even more detrimental than taking
a somewhat controversial action.

In essence, we are barreling down the road at 60 MPH. We can see the
fork coming. We have no breaks and the accelerator is stuck. Our options
are:

	1.	Continue straight ahead into whatever awaits us.
	2.	Fork left (adopt the policy)
	3.	Fork right (adopt some other policy or modify and adopt this one)

From my perspective, the community seems somewhat evenly divided
on one particular aspect of this policy (the 10% clause) and generally
in favor of everything else (except the /27 clause which I believe there
is consensus to revise to /24).

I believe that adopting this policy (with the /24 modification that seems
to have consensus) is best, but, I also believe that adopting this
policy without the 10% clause, while damaging, will be less damaging
than doing nothing.

However, I do not live within the region and if someone wishes to
discount my opinion on that basis, you have my blessing. However,
my only motivation in expressing an opinion is to offer my perspective
on what I believe is most beneficial to the AfriNIC community. I do not
have anything to gain or lose by whatever decision is made, personally.
 
>> So my remark still stands. I would still be sceptical about the motives
>> of any non-African based entity that supported the dilution of AfriNIC
>> resources (IPv4 address space in this case) out of the AfriNIC area.
> 
> There is need to synthesize the many diverse views, including yours, into the policy, 
> what ever that will be. We will most likely get it wrong if we rush with only one or a 
> few such views.
> 

Unfortunately, this particular policy has become quite timely and a failure to
implement it expediently is, frankly, equally likely to be wrong and essentially
equivalent to adopting the "anti" position. If the policy is not enacted relatively
soon, it will be overtaken by events.

Owen
>