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

[AfriNIC-rpd] Call for Comments: Draft Minutes of Public Policy Meeting during AfriNIC-15 in Yaounde

McTim dogwallah at
Tue Jan 10 12:30:58 UTC 2012

Hi SM,

Comments inline as usual:

On 1/7/12, SM <sm at> wrote:


> As the Policy Development Working Group Chairs
> held a public policy meeting in Yaounde, could they please explain:
>   (i)  Why the agenda for the meeting was not announced on Resource Policy
>        Discussion mailing list?

This is surprising, as the Agenda was worked on extensively before the
I had thought it was posted to the list and on the AfriNIC-15 website.

Apologies for not ensuring this was done.

>   (ii) Why the minutes of proceedings is being published after six weeks?

We only had the Minutes produced ~1 week ago.  Reading the PDP again,
it does stipulate that minutes should be produced in 3 weeks time
after the meeting.

The minutes are produced by AfriNIC staff and then circulated to the
Co-Chairs for
review.  In any case, apologies for this oversight, it was not intentional.

>>The functions of the  Policy Development Working Group and  WG Chairs
>>were also explained. The process involved in policy development was then
>>further detailed, from initial submission of a proposal, provision of
>>relevant analyses by AfriNIC staff, mailing list discussion procedures
>>as well as conflict resolution and appeal mechanisms. Paulos concluded
>>by stating that there is a need for an urgent review of the PDP.
> Where can I find the review of the PDP mentioned above?

Well the 'relevant analysis' is at
but there has been no "review", as the general feeling at the meeting
was that a charter or guidelines for the co-chairs would be adequate.

>>[2.0] Staff Analysis of the AfriNIC PDP and Outstanding Issues for Full
> [snip]
>>Issue #2: The Policy does not spell out the mechanism for replacing an
>>incapable co-chair.
> Did the staff really mean "unable to do or achieve" co-chair here?

I don't know, but it seems that "incapable" is pretty clear to me
(meaning unable).

>>Issue #3: The policy only states it is the Appeals committee that
>>resolves conflicts ­ nothing more is specified
>>Staff Recommendation:
>>     (i) The complainant shall send their appeal in the form of an email
>>to policy-submission at The email must mention the names and
>>email addresses of three (3) persons who support it.
> I suggest sending the appeal to this mailing list.

Wouldn't both email addresses be appropriate?

>>Adiel Akplogan commenting on the relative weights of mailing list and
>>face-to-face meeting comments said that only comments on the RPD mailing
>>list made before the face-to-face meeting should only be equal to those
>>at face-to-face meetings.
> The sentence is not clear.  I suggest asking Mr
> Adiel Akplogan whether the sentence reflects what he said.

I will leave it to him to comment.

>>(b) Transfer of IPv4 Space to any Entity
>>The PDP MG co-chairs presented the proposal as written in absence of the
> There is a typo (PDP MG) in the above.

There is indeed, good catch!

> BTW, the draft minutes does not mention that
> remote participation was not possible during
> parts of the meeting.  I suggest adding a note about that.

I wouldn't think this significant enough to be minuted.


PDP co-chair

More information about the RPD mailing list