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

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

McTim dogwallah at
Tue May 22 11:30:07 UTC 2012

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at> wrote:
> Hi,
> On 22 May 2012 11:51, Adiel Akplogan <adiel at> wrote:
>> 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).
> It is implied in our current PDP that interventions like withdrawals
> can only be done when policies are in draft (#5). So unless we change
> this it would look abit in contravention of the current PDP.
>> 2. Check with other regions the status of the GP within their PDP
> Yes, we could do this; or we could monitor activity at the ASO/NRO
> instead -- The ASO is tasked to pass information into the RIR system
> about the status of Global policies...
> I prefer the later for the reason that if one of the RIRs were to have
> a PDP that allowed for policies to be recalled after gaining consensus
> and possibly returned on fast track, then we risk being in a situation
> where we "discard/abandon" a policy only to learn that another region
> brought it back with probably minor changes that the ASO "accepts" and
> then we have to re-run our policy through the PDP which in my
> experience, could be even another year of waiting.
>> 3. Present the fact to the community get consensus to declare the policy dead (or not)
> Yes
>> 4. Inform the staff (Policy Liaison Manager) to change status of policy to "Abandon" if
>>    needed.
> Yes
>> Will that make sense?
> Yes, That would make sense.
> And it would also seem to me that if we invoked #7
> we might not require to make any policy revisions -- but maybe only a
> change in status name that we can add here
> -- Did someone say "Abandoned"  :-)
> PS: The URLs for the policies on the new website are far too long. see
> below the names of the same policy; first the old naming (1) and new
> naming (2)
> 1.
> 2.
> I know you might argue SEO or something else, but I think this is
> going to make it extremely messy to reference in emails etc -- I would
> like to see these changed back to the old format or something shorter

I have asked several times that this content be changed to: up until the change to new
website last week shows a 2004 PDP.
..that url now redirects to

If we are going to have a on new
website, the current PDP should live there.


"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

More information about the RPD mailing list