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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Latest version of the policy AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-03

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jun 25 19:44:20 UTC 2013

On Jun 24, 2013, at 04:56 , Andrew Alston <alston.networks at> wrote:

> Hi Jackson,
> I dispute that "we have more opposition than support".
> I would ask, of the number of objections we have had on this list.
> A.) How many people who are on this list were in the room at the meeting
> in Zambia expressing opposition.

This question is utterly and completely meaningless and has no place in the process.

I ask that the co-chairs remind Mr. Alston of the nature of the policy development process and make clear to him that presence at the PDP WG meeting is specifically not a condition of participation in the process and failure to attend a single meeting cannot be used to disenfranchise someone from their role in said process.

I, for one, was not in the room at the time this was discussed.

> B.) If there are no extras in on this that were not in the room, or a
> insignificant number in addition to those in the room, the consensus still
> stands (unless people on this list that were in that room voted for and
> not against, and have now changed stance).  I need to go through the list
> of people I have that voted against in the room and then we can get an
> actual view.  Because if the 5 or 6 people on the list that are now
> objecting are the same people who were in the room objecting the first
> time, when 95% of the room voted in favour, the status quo remains the
> same.

People who opposed the policy in the room are free to retain that dissent in last call. Consensus in the room does not invalidate their dissent at the time or during last call. I ask the co-chairs to remind Mr. Alston of this fact as well.

> Emile, can you please clarify this?

There are two co-chairs. It is not appropriate to ask just one of them, IMHO. As I understand the process (someone can correct me if I am wrong), Seun and Emile share equally the role of co-chairs and both must discuss the matter and come to agreement on a response to the working group.

> Further more, I think its still pretty early days to comment on if we do
> or don't have consensus, since the last call period I believe runs for 30
> days and since the new draft has not officially been issued by the PDWG
> chairs yet, this has not even begun yet.

While I agree that a conclusion is premature, I think that the current debate is healthy and can benefit the community. I suggest that the community would be better served if both the author and the opponents focused more on their desired outcomes and less on their passion for the issues at hand.


More information about the RPD mailing list