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

[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Sander Steffann sander at
Wed Jul 19 12:05:39 UTC 2017

Hi Alan,

> Op 19 jul. 2017, om 07:28 heeft Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at> het volgende geschreven:
>> On 18 Jul 2017, at 22:10, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> wrote:
>> There is a full consensus on the list on the principle of review (including yourself).
>> What Is then expected from all participants in the PDP is to contribute to improve the proposal on the table to make it a consensual document.
> A policy proposal, to be accepted, must gain rough consensus on the detils of the proposal, not only on the principle.
> When a proposal fails to find rough consensus, then I believe that the onus is on the authors to  produce a revised draft that addresses the objections, or to persuade the community as a whole that the objections are not valid or not important.  Alternatively, the authors may withdraw the proposal.
> Objectors who want to be taken seriously should explain the reasons for their objections.  There is no requirement for objectors to suggest alternative text to improve the proposal, although it is often very useful for objectors to do that.  Authors can use these explanations, and proposed text changes if available, to assist them in producing a revised draft of the proposal.

Thank you, that is a very concise and in my view correct description of how policy development should work in a bottom-up community.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list