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

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

Adiel Akplogan adiel at
Tue May 22 08:51:58 UTC 2012

On 2012-05-22, at 12:07 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:

> 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 until the proposal is withdrawn by the authors" and I think that is part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.

Got it. Then I guess the Chairs have to take certain steps to declare it "dead".

1. Actively contact the author(s) to check what is their intention and seek 
    their feeling about the survival of the policy in it current form (the form 
    approved by AFRINIC).
2. Check with other regions the status of the GP within their PDP
3. Present the fact to the community get consensus to declare the policy dead (or not)
4. Inform the staff (Policy Liaison Manager) to change status of policy to "Abandon" if 

Will that make sense?

- a.
> (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
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list