Search RPD Archives
[rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Wed Dec 6 14:50:07 UTC 2017
Thank you for respectful discussion.
For the record, I do not think the PDP is flawed for this case as well as
for the review policy case.(it was flawed in some other way but not related
to this discussion).
*I think the chairs are not following PDP.*
PDP requires rough consensus to move forward to last call.
Rough consensus defines as--in a simple version, all major objections have
been addressed, only mirror objection or no objection exists.
*An acceptable resolution to all parties--majority or minority, have to be
In both policy case, there are some ideological differences between
community members, and those difference are too big that an acceptable
resolution might never been found. Therefore there was never consensus in
the first place.
But Chair declared consensus for both polices in the different meetings
while disregarding major objection still exists in the mailing list.
Based on...one side have better organized meeting plan and have more people
on the floor.
That is a process violation.
You are right, the outcome is ultimately the same, the policy kick back to
discussion phase, *but if we don't fix the process violation, it will
happen again and again, we will let majority overturn minority in the
meeting floor again and again, we will let majority in the floor bully
their way out of policy process again and again.*
*So this need to be fixed now!*
On 6 December 2017 at 21:55, Christian Ahiauzu <
christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng> wrote:
> I understand where you are coming from. But like you noted, the Internet
> number resources review policy has gone back to the mailing list from the
> final call status. Meaning, that the process of "checking again" works.
> If we think that the current PDP is flawed, then, it cannot be repaired by
> an Appeal process. Rather, just like some community members are currently
> doing, we solve that problem using a policy update or total change of an
> existing policy. The AfriNIC Policy Development Process BIS, I believe
> noticed the flawed nature of our PDP and is trying to solve the problems
> using a policy. If an appeal process was not called, the current objections
> to the IPv4 Soft Landing -BIS policy might still send it back to the
> mailing list and its status is stepped down. Now, with the appeal, it will
> still yield the same result but in a different way. But will this appeal
> stop other policies from entering into final call "prematurely"?.
> I really think the appeal at this point was not called for, with due
> respect to all parties involved.
> On Dec 6, 2017 10:23 AM, "Lu Heng" <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>> 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 uniport.edu.ng> 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
>>> 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
>>> On Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM, "Alan Levin" <alan at futureperfect.co.za> wrote:
>>>> Oops sorry I wasn't finished..
>>>> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Alan Levin <alan at futureperfect.co.za>
>>>>> 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: https://afrinic.net/en/
>>>>> 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 afrinic.net
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> Kind regards.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD