Search RPD Archives
[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
alston.networks at gmail.com
Fri Jan 25 19:29:18 UTC 2013
Then it is a fair question to ask of the directors who are present on this
list, what is the situation when a new policy conflicts with an old policy,
and we get an explanation of the decision making process to figure out which
policy will end up winning the day. I would hope that a review and decision
like this by the directors would not be an arbitrary process and there would
be a set way to evaluate this and come to a decision. As such I would like
that process explained to this list.
From: sm+afrinic at elandsys.com [mailto:sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 9:21 PM
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: RE: [AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal
At 04:48 25-01-2013, Andrew Alston wrote:
>I want to clarify something.
>In the event of a new policy that conflicts with an older policy, is
>there a de-facto state of the newer superseding the older?
>I.E if we implemented this new policy where it conflicts with the
>current policies, would it automatically supersede them?
AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 covers the development and modification of policies for
handling Internet Number Resources within the AfriNIC service region. In
theory a new policy should not conflict with an existing policy as the new
policy is supposed to be reviewed carefully by all the people on this
mailing list, all the people at the meeting, all the people on this mailing
list, and all the directors of AfriNIC.
It would be up to the directors of AfriNIC to decide what to do.
More information about the RPD