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 15:30:42 UTC 2012

On 2012-05-22, at 15:17 PM, Douglas Onyango 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.

So you are suggesting a section specific to GP in our current PDP. Which I 
think will make sense.

>> 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...

Yes we can relay on our NRO-NC reps to update the co-chairs on the status in 
other regions, but I don't think the two way should be exclusive as I believe 
that it is good for the co-Chairs to be abreast of what is happening on the 
other RIRs Policy lists.

> 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

I will maybe suggest not to go that route (of "case of an emergency") in solving this 
issue. As we are on it we should try to define a precise way of handling the status of 
GO so not to have to "always" call upon emergency situation for GP. 

- a.

More information about the RPD mailing list