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

[rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Lu Heng at
Wed Dec 6 09:23:03 UTC 2017

Hi Christian:

Because there is one huge problem need to be fixed here.

The chair declared consensus on the floor without considering t there are
major objections in the mailing list in which was not addressed yet.

It is not the first time, it happened last time with the review policy as
well.(and possibly many other policies that I am not aware of)

Both review and the soft landing policy, there is ideology difference
between community members that just too big to be considered mirror

Just because some bring more people to the floor does not mean consensus
can be reached without addressing major objections.

Even, theoretically, there is one person ideologically disagree with the
policy with a sounding argument, if that disagreement cannot be addressed
with agreeable resolution, consensus can not be reached, and that is the
very definition of the consensus decision making process.

If you declaring consensus without considering that one person's
ideological difference, you are not reaching consensus, instead, you are
bullying that person to ignore the process.

So this will need to be fixed here in the PDP, or, we will need to change
consensus-based to vote based if that can be possible.

On 6 December 2017 at 10:07, Christian Ahiauzu <
christian.ahiauzu at> wrote:

> Hi all,
> In fact, I have been wondering what the last call period is for. Please
> put me on the right lane. Is the last call period not meant to check if
> there are still any objections to the policy proposal under discuss? If my
> postulation is true, then it means if sustained objections are found at
> this point, then the policy will likely not be sent for ratification by the
> board.
> If all the above be the case, then was there actually any need for
> invoking an appeal process at this point? Why didn't we just get further
> objections to the policy proposed and discuss way forward. I am really lost
> here and need clarification especially from Andrew who initiated the Appeal
> process.
> BR
> Christian.
> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at> wrote:
>> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at>
>> wrote:
>>> I am surprised that we have not heard from these "Chairs", in fact I had
>>> to look up who the chairs actually are...
>>> I believe that this page shows:
>>> community/policy-development/pdwg
>>> 1. Dewole Ajao
>> 2. Sami Salih
>> Gentlemen, we clearly require your leadership here.
>> Whilst I see the Board has been acquiring legal assistance to deal with
>> their own group, we really don't want to get to that level here please.
>> Dewole, Sami - you do not have sufficient support for this policy, please
>> end this discussion and start a new one!
>> Kind thanks
>> Alan
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list