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

[rpd] APNIC presentation prop-118

David Hilario d.hilario at
Mon Mar 6 15:56:16 UTC 2017

Hi Seun,

Thank you for your comments.

I just reviewed the video:

Actually mine was the one with lowest amount of reaction, at around 20,
while to previous proposal got around 30 reactions (I just quickly browsed
through and may have missed the part with more support for me).

But the amounts are not important, policy making has never been a vote
within our communities, the tool is good to give an idea of a general
feeling of the participants during a live session, really especially good
for the ones who do not speak English, but at the same time, it doesn't
offer the opportunity to argument an objection, it is imperative that
objections are accompanied with a reason or argument as to why the policy
proposal is bad or broken so that the proposer can rework the policy text
and eventually address the objections or simply drop the proposal

One well documented objection is worth more than one thousand empty +1
And it should always be like that.

This is one of the dynamics that I love in the AFRINIC community btw, where
arguments are made and the proposer can quickly throw in a new and updated
version online to address those arguments.

I will prepare something for AFRINIC, so it can at least get discussed and
reviewed to weight in the pros and cons of a potential implementation of a
"no need" based transfers.

As I mentioned earlier it is done at RIPE already and it didn't have any
negative impact over there.

David Hilario

*IP Manager*

*Larus Cloud Service Limited*

p: +852 29888918 <+852%202988%208918>  m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068 <+852%202988%208068>
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
e: d.hilario at <d.hilario at>

On 5 March 2017 at 12:18, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at> wrote:

> Hello,
> I happen to be in the room during the APNIC PPM. A number of proposals
> were discussed before prop-118 with each of them having their total number
> of CONFER responders averaging within the 20s but prop-118 averaged in the
> 40s. That could be because it was discussed much later and there were more
> people connected (by the way CONFER allows both on-site/offsite
> participation[1]).
> However, irrespective of any hypothesis that may ensue, the SIG Chair
> already flag early prior to prop-118 the fact that CONFER was a tool in its
> trial phase hence it's results were going to be considered within those
> realities (paraphrasing)[2]
> On that note, situations are different in our region hence our approach
> may be different so I will encourage David to put up any policy proposal
> forward for this community to discuss. In the long run, it's this community
> participating in this rpd that decides irrespective of the
> happenings/decision in other region.
> I am for one glad that some of our region members are also following other
> RIR discussions as it's the way we can be better informed and derive our
> independent views (however valid or invalid they might be)
> Regards
> 1. Our community may want to consider it's use case as it concerns remote
> participation
> 2. Anyone further interested can check the video logs on the APRICOT
> website.
> On 4 Mar 2017 11:04 AM, "Jackson Muthili" <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 4, 2017, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at>
>> wrote:
>>> > On 3 Mar 2017, at 21:47, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at>
>>> wrote:
>>> > We follow APNIC discussion. Do not mislead the community. There was no
>>> problem with their software. You tried to cheat by putting fake
>>> participants to vote for your policy and you were caught.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Your questionable ethic puts me at a position to oppose any policy you
>>> introduce in our region.
>>> Please don’t accuse people of trying to cheat, unless you have clear
>>> evidence.
>> There's that good old English idiom. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
>> You want to be dispassionate and all but keep your eyes wide open
>> especially on this one.
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list