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

[AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Thu Jun 27 07:50:59 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 6:33 AM, Andrew Alston
<alston.networks at> wrote:
> Badru,
>> please note I'm allowed to discuss on this list in my individual capacity.
> And I do not dispute this at all
>> But what I'm trying to do for all is to encourage open thinking and to
>> allow for synergy.  however passionate one is towards a policy lets not be
>> blind to some of the weak points of the policy and if
>> really we have the good of the entire community at hand we should be
>> prepared to openly ask the questions.
> And I agree we should ask the questions, and as you may have observed, I
> have had no problems answering the questions, both here and in the face to
> face meeting.
>> Being Chair does and should never mean that I'm the Almanac of all AfriNIC
>> and internet policy.  I have enough Humility to say that i do not know
>> everything and i have no problem saying here on the list.
>> We should all be open to share and learn from each other.
> 100% agreed on this.  However, and this is where I have an issue.  I have
> raised the fact that we have a procedure and requested that we follow it
> multiple times on this list.  Be you chair, or be you posting in your
> individual capacity however, you seem to have ignored this request multiple
> times.  I also feel that while no person can have every policy memorised,
> any chair of the board of an organisation like AfriNIC should be well versed
> in the very procedures that govern this organisation, one of them is the
> policy process that has stood the test of time in this organisation since
> day one.  I have raised the fact multiple times that we have a process,
> please let us follow it.  I believe that when a commitment is made to the
> community in a room of many people, that we will take something to last call
> with certain changes as agreed in that meeting, that is what we should do.
> Yes, we can discuss alternatives and we can discuss the merits and
> de-merits, however, we still need to see that last call through as was
> discussed and committed to and not violate our own processes.  Should the
> policy fail to reach consensus in last call, all alternatives discussed are
> open and at that point the authors can choose to make further changes to
> attempt to find consensus or can withdraw.  This has always been the process
> and I believe very strongly we should follow it.
>> What some members are saying is that your policy however good intentioned
>> it is needs some modifications.  I also think Alan(APB) did point that
>> changes can be made to a policy during last call.
> Last call allows for certain changes as agreed at the meeting, however,
> major changes would require the policy to go back to a consensus vote at the
> meeting and then a second last call period to my knowledge.  At this point I
> would like to ask for a ruling from the PDWG chairs on this because in my
> mind the process is pretty clear.  How far can you change something in last
> call before it is no longer a last call.

Let us look at the PDP

6.3 Last Call
A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group
Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion
mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The
Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the
Public Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether
consensus has been achieved.

Most important text for Andrew: The Working Group Chair(s) shall
evaluate the feedback received during the Public Policy Meeting and
during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved.

So feedback receive during last call is IMPORTANT to determine
consensus finally by the chairs.

Andrew your agreement with community to approve while ignoring last
call discussion contravene PDP and is null and void.


>> If you look at all my posts you will find that though i have clearly
>> stated that I'm not in support I'm asking us to think deeper and wider at
>> what areas can make this proposal palatable to the whole community.
> I am fully aware that you are not in support.  I am also however fully aware
> that when this policy was put before the floor in the face to face meeting,
> we had a limited number of objections, and the floor requested 2 changes.
> Both of which have been made, and a possible third negotiation point on the
> ratio.  When committing to making those changes, there were no objections.
> Now, I 100% acknowledge that in last call anyone has the right to change
> positions and consensus may not be reached in the event of a large number of
> people changing those positions.  However, based on simple pure numbers of
> people on this list posting, and based on the numbers in that room who voted
> in favour of this policy, I still believe that we should follow what was
> agreed in that meeting to its conclusion, and if that conclusion is that the
> community has shifted position from what was in that room, then we can
> revisit the rest of the policy with no issues in my mind, but to do
> otherwise is to ignore the expressed will in that room and as a community
> based organisation I do not feel that we should do that.  Be you posting in
> your individual capacity or as chair of the board, I simply ask that you
> respect the process and respect the agreements that were reached in that
> room.
>> From an AfriNIC point of view the questions that need to be asked
>> regardless of floor consensus i believe would be as follows
>> What is the effect of this proposal on the sustainability of AfriNIC ???
>> Does the proposal enable Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>> for the whole community ??
>> Is the proposal Technically Sound and in line with generally acceptable
>> practice  ??
> Badru, sorry, I have to stop you here.  AfriNIC by the process, is requested
> to perform an analysis on each and every proposal before it reaches the
> floor.  It was done, the staff analysis was online and available for all to
> see.  Are you telling me that AfriNIC failed to do its duty to this
> community and perform that function as it was meant to do, and now, during
> last call, suddenly wants to redo the analysis that was put before the
> community because the job was not done sufficiently the first time?
>> My issue is that we all take one of two positions.  we either fight the
>> proposal or blindly support.  I want us to look for the third alternative.
>> Look at some of the points raised by members and see how we can take all
>> points and create a proposal even better than the original proposal.
> And my issue is that at the meeting we agreed to certain changes, and were
> willing to make them.  Before the meeting, for almost 6 months, this call
> was on the list and was discussed EXTENSIVELY if you go back and look at the
> archives, and where changes were requested they were made and answered.  The
> proposal went to the floor where a larger number of people voted in favour
> for this policy than the entire number of people who have posted on this
> list in 2013 (Yes, I checked), and now what you are asking is that we
> violate the defined AfriNIC process and ignore the will of those on the
> floor that this go to last call with the changes requested and instead start
> looking at a third option at this late stage.  As I have said, once the last
> call is finalised, I have no problem if the policy does not pass consensus
> looking at further major changes, but I am not prepared to make such changes
> that would endanger the last call as was agreed to with the community.
>> if you saw the list sent out you will see that in Uganda only RENU seems
>> to have a resource i would like more HEI's in my country to have the
>> resources but would not like to have this at the expense of breaking the
>> current system.
>> I do not think it is in the spirit of the internet and it's policies.
> You make statements like this, yet I have read your arguments and I have
> responded to each and every one of them.  I have looked at the financial
> arguments, and I have responded with figures and facts based on AfriNIC's
> own publications at the meeting.  You have not responded to the email or the
> numbers contained therein.  I have looked at the issue raised where you
> claimed that it would allow Universities to become ISP's and it has been
> responded to and demonstrated that neither user classification or current
> policy would allow for this to happen, yet you have not withdrawn that
> objection.  I have looked at the issue where you say that a University could
> export their space and again, because the policy classifies Universities as
> end users, it has been pointed out that this could not happen.  Each
> objection you have raised has been responded to very carefully, and while
> you talk about us not supporting blindly, I ask that you do not take the
> position where you are determined to oppose without considering the merits
> of the arguments contained in the answers to the questioned you raised,
> since in no case when provided an answer that categorically proves that a
> question poses a hypothetical that is inaccurate have you been willing to
> withdraw from the particular question.
>> So all I'm asking once again is that with a bit of humility and all your
>> technical and community spirits lets step back look at the policy in its
>> entirety and openly find that third alternative that will bring the
>> community together.
> And again I state, should the policy not pass last call, I am more than
> happy to make major revisions.  However, I will respect the process, the
> demonstrated will of the community and the vast amounts of discussion had on
> this policy since its inception and I wish to see this policy through to the
> end of last call in the form that was agreed as per the process at the face
> to face meeting, bar minor changes as agreed to in that meeting.
> Regards,
> Andrew
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Andrew Alston <alston.networks at>
> wrote:
> Badru, I would oppose these changes in the last call period (Other than the
> ratio, which we have always openly stated is a point for further
> negotiations and hence I believe that can be changed within the confines of
> last call)
> We took a policy to the floor for consensus, the consensus was granted, and
> the agreement from the floor was that THAT policy  with modifications as
> requested on the floor go to last call.
> To change the policy to add additional elements would not be what we had
> agreed with the community in that room, and that was to table what was put
> before them.  We have to act within the policy and within the remit granted
> to us by the floor in Zambia, that is how the process is designed and how it
> is meant to work.  Further changes to the policy would have to go back to
> the floor at a subsequent meeting, and to change the policy and not proceed
> to last call and create a delay like that after committing in front of the
> community to taking the policy to last call with the changes they requested
> would in my view be disingenuous.  If this policy does not pass last call
> then we can relook at that then.
> I would ask that you, as Chairman of Afrinic, respect the Afrinic process as
> defined.
> Andrew
> From: Badru Ntege <ntegeb at>
> Date: Wednesday 26 June 2013 5:02 PM
> To: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at>
> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at>
> Subject: Re: [AFRINIC-rpd] Commencement of the last call
> So sunday
> Are we prepared to change other areas like bring back some level of network
> justification.  Some how re-align with current practice as opposed to
> breaking all current practice ???
> On Jun 26, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at> wrote:
> Thank you Badru, This is progress.
> Thank you Badru. Perhaps we should return to the initial proposal of 3:1
> before the invention of photoptab.
> Mme Maye, what sayest thou?
> Sunday.
> On 26 Jun 2013 15:05, "Badru Ntege" <ntegeb at> wrote:
>> Though totally not in support of the policy of allocating by numbers.  If
>> this can make us start looking at this policy to make it more acceptable
>> On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at> wrote:
>>  > ii) his focus on south region without any provision of equity;
>> This statement has been addressed over and over. Indeed it cares more for
>> the other regions with lower entry barrier. We can lower the ratio to 3:1,
>> 2:1 even 0.5:1 if you will .... but you are not even proposing anything!!
>> I would propose  2:1  and would also be more stringent in that the entity
>> must have infrastructure in place and also an existing or planned uplink to
>> the internet within 2 months of allocation.
>> Also i would expect stricter due diligence since we are proposing very
>> subjective measures and criteria for allocation.
>> regards
> _______________________________________________ rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list