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

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

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Wed Dec 6 14:48:01 UTC 2017


That isn’t quite correct - the appeal process can kick in at any point after a decision has been made and announced.

We are appealing the decision to take this to last call at all - and that continues irrespective of if the policy passes last call - if it does not pass last call - the appeal will still happen - because we are appealing a procedural ground that needs to be fixed going forward.

The only way this appeal will not proceed is if the co chairs withdraw putting the policy into last call - otherwise it must proceed - so that we do not end up back here every 6 months.


Get Outlook for iOS<>
From: Mark Elkins <mje at>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 8:16:38 AM
To: rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

For the Record - I am against this Soft Landing Proposal.

Having said that,

The way that I understand the policy proposal system to work is: (and I've done a few myself, some passed, some didn't)

1) Some one or group of people make a policy proposal. They send it to the PDP Co-Chairs and get a proper reference No for it and its posted to the PDP Mailing list.

2) The Policy is discussed on the list and the policy is (if necessary) refined. People indicate whether they support the policy or not and suggest changes if appropriate. I believe this is where the bulk of work should happen. This is usually the case in other regions.

3) At the next AFRINIC meeting (assuming that the policy has been in circulation long enough - something like four weeks) - the policy is further presented to the community members who are there. More exchange of ideas can happen here - but it should be understood that only a fraction of the PDP mailing list participants will be in the room. At the end of the discussion period the PDP Co-Chairs try and gauge consensus (actually - this should be an ongoing thing, bringing into account what happened on the mailing lists before the meeting as well as in the discussion period in the room). If they feel that a rough consensus has been reached - they move the policy to "Last Call". If not - the policy reverts to the mailing list.

4) Once Policy is in Last Call - as long as there are no substantial objections - the policy will be sent to the Board for ratification. This is usually a "Rubber Stamp" affair - unless there is something harmful in the policy towards the Company.

5) If there are no updates to the policy in about a year(?) - the policy is withdrawn. The authors can also withdraw at any time.

That's the generalisation of the current process.

The appeal process is what I understand can be brought about if a policy passes Last Call yet still has very unhappy people. I'd say that Andrew is getting ready for an appeal - because the appeal process is new - never been used - so is getting his ducks in a row. Right now - I sense that enough people are objecting to this policy that it won't get past Last Call, thus the Appeal Process will not be tested.

We've seen this before, Sunday (our esteemed Chair Person) and one other proposed a policy for universities - so they could get IPv4 address space easier. Before the meeting - this had very positive support. At the meeting (in Lusaka, Zambia) it passed to last call - but got shot down by (as I remember) a small but vocal handful of people. I still think this was a dumb thing to happen - but anyway.

I think also at AFRINIC that we have created a culture that if this policy is proposed by X - then it must be bad. That is a very unhealthy culture and, to coin a phrase, cutting your nose off to spite your face. Best example of this is the "Inward bound international transfer" policy.

On 06/12/2017 11:07, Christian Ahiauzu 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.


On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at<mailto:alan at>> wrote:
Oops sorry I wasn't finished..

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at<mailto: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:<>

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


RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at<mailto:mje at>       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:<>

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

More information about the RPD mailing list