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

Discarding Dead Global Policies [Was Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Discarding dead policies]

Mark Elkins mje at
Tue May 22 08:07:00 UTC 2012

Thus I think we just need policy for part two???

Adiel, in your conclusion, you say "The status 'Approved' should stay
until the proposal is withdrawn by the authors" and I think that is part
of the problem. If authors withdrew dead policies, we would not be
talking about this problem. I think authors assume that there is some
sort of cleanup of dead policies - therefore someone (PDP Chairs?) needs
to declare dead policies officially dead. As I suggested - the PDP
Chairs could raise 'dead' policies and (with consensus) ask the
community to discard them.

(By 'dead' - I mean a policy that can never be a global policy because
at least one other region will not agree to it - thus IANA/ICANN will
never approve)

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 00:13 +0400, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
> In my understanding, on this matter I see two scenarios:
> 1. Globally coordinated policies which are policies proposed by different (or
> same people) in different regions with the objective of getting their principle
> adopted and implemented in each RIR's region (maybe with small variances to
> adapt to local context).  A policy like that should normally not have a global
> effect on the RIR system. An example is AFPUB-2007-GEN-001. These policies can
> be adopted in one region and totally rejected in another region and that
> will/should not prevent the policy to be implemented (according to the local PDP
> guideline) in region(s) where it has been accepted (all politics set aside).
> 2. Candidate for Global Policy: This is a kind of policy which is meant to
> define how IANA deal with RIRs in term of Number Resource management. This kind
> of policy has to be proposed in all the regions and a commonly agreed text
> should be submitted to ICANN board for ratification. The role of each RIR in
> this case will be to approve the policy as Global Policy Candidate (following
> there respective PDP). Such a policy can NOT be implemented by RIRs individually
>  but by ICANN or IANA.
> So in this debate I think the proposal could be for PDP-WG to instruct the staff
> to define a new status for Global Policy Proposals that have gone through the
> local PDP as "Approved" ("Waiting Global Consensus" or "Waiting ICANN
> ratification") and do nothing if nothing happened elsewhere. The policy status
> will change to "Ratified" only after the ICANN board has ratified it and pass it
> to IANA for implementation. The status "Approved" should stay until the proposal
> is withdrawn by the authors.
> - a.
> On 2012-05-18, at 18:41 PM, SM wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > At 04:11 18-05-2012, Mark Elkins wrote:
> >> With respect to Global Policies that have entered or passed any part of
> >> the AfriNIC process (from start to Board ratification), if it becomes
> >> clear that a Global Policy can not become Global Policy because other
> >> regions have not passed, neither intend to pass them, (are there any
> >> other reasons?) then - regardless of the stage that the policy is at
> >> (for example - it may not yet have been ratified by the Board), I
> >> believe the PDP Chairs should have the discretion to raise such stale
> >> global polices before the community at a face to face meeting and ask
> >> for consensus for the global policy to be discarded.
> >> 
> >> Something along these lines?

> > There have been negative comments about the way a global policy
> proposal was handled.  The PDWG Chairs have some discretion.  One
> question is whether the decision taken might open the way for problems
> in future.  That's the angle I would look at for the above suggestion.
> > Regards,
> > -sm 
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at
> >

  .  .     ___. .__      Posix Systems - (South) Africa
 /| /|       / /__       mje at  -  Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS  Tel: +27 12 807 0590  Cell: +27 82 601 0496

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list