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

[rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Marcus K. G. Adomey madomey at
Wed Mar 29 16:19:25 UTC 2017

Dear Co-chairs,

While reading your email, I am wondering whether you are really sure of what you are trying to organize. Have you considered the following points?

1 - Mark Elkins is one of the co-authors of the softlanding overhaul
2- The co-authors of the softlanding-bis proposal which is still in the PDWG track  said  ".... we are available for any further actions required from us" in their response to your  7 days call.

Some thoughts for reflection!!!


From: SamiSalih <sami at>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:03:11 AM
To: rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Dear PDWG,

We appreciate your active discussion regarding the soft landing policy.

This is to declare the end of the Seven Days comment period on developing a common proposal according to the points commonly agreed before whether in the RPD or at PPMs.

So far we have Mark Elkins and Arsène Tungali as the only volunteers. We hope they can edit the commonly agreed view in a new policy update proposal document and work with other community members including authors of previous proposals that wish to lend their experience.

Best Regards,

PDWG Co-Chairs

From: "Honest Ornella GANKPA" <honest1989 at>
To: "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at>
Cc: "rpd" <rpd at>
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:49:22 PM
Subject: Re: [rpd] Report of the Soft Landing isuue

Hello Dewole

It has been suggested to take the points which have consensus on the wide variety and get an editor to come up with a new version  if we really do not want the current authors to do it.

Best regards

Honest Ornella GANKPA

2017-03-27 8:52 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <dewole at<mailto:dewole at>>:
The proposal "already in the PDP" (as you put it) deals with a wide variety of areas. That collection of areas has not found consensus. If the authors choose to whittle the proposal down to those areas that the community largely agrees on, the co-chairs would not need to point out areas that volunteers can adopt and put forward.

Although proposals (once submitted to the RPD list) are supposed to be owned by the community and not the authors, the current definition/implementation of the AFRINIC PDP does not promote that enough. I stand to be corrected but I think that is why we find ourselves in this logjam today.

The submission presented by co-chairs a week ago was to allow a chance to do things the collaborative way. A chance to disconnect from whatever sentiments exist and tackle policy issues (which is why we are here).

I fail to see what makes you think the co-chairs are focusing on authors rather than policy.


Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos and autocorrect strangeness.

On 26 Mar 2017, at 8:52 PM, Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at<mailto:honest1989 at>> wrote:

Hi Dewole,

2017-03-26 18:37 GMT+01:00 Dewole Ajao <dewole at<mailto:dewole at>>:

There is more to benefit from collaborating on a single draft rather than spewing out multiple proposals.

Agreed! So why are you asking for new proposals when there is already one in PDP.  Co-chairs need to focus on policy not authors.

 Honest Ornella GANKPA

RPD mailing list
RPD at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list