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

[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 135, Issue 58

Lu Heng at
Fri Dec 8 07:16:57 UTC 2017


Check out my email below to learn more about consensus process:


No, it is not a loophole; it is an intentional design in order to ensure
that an acceptable resolution to all parties (a.k.a rough consensus) is
found before any policy changes.

This also means that the minority will not be ignored even under the
circumstances in which the majority agrees to certain things.

However, when looking at what happened in the past few days, I am no longer
sure if it is even a matter of majority or minority – it's more like people
none profit and academic institutions in favor of preservation of resources
while ISPs in general wants resource being distributed naturally.

if you feel like " the discussions must end the opinion of the greatest
number can be adopté", then you are very welcome to propose a new PDP which
is based on voting rather than consensus – but until then, under the
current process, it is not how things work.

But just for the record, Even I am in favor of the market economy, my
cooperation and I generally don’t care about the soft landing policy – as *we
are not applying for any of the last /8 resources. Thus, we have no
opinions regarding this policy. However, process violation still needs to
be corrected, regardless of the outcome of the policy.*

2017-12-08 0:06 GMT+08:00 Kangamutima zabika Christophe <
funga.roho at>:

> Dewole,
> Merci pour cette clarification avec arguments à l'appui, je ne retrouve
> pas parmi les objections faites avant la réunion d'afrinic, la conversation
> ou l'objection qu'Andrew évoquait où il aurait fait part à l'un des
> co-président sa désapprobation. Parcequ'il se basait sur cet élément pour
> contester le consensus déclarait par le groupe de travail. Si vraiment, les
> choses se sont passées tel que décrit par Dewole alors les détracteurs de
> cette politique étaient surement distret lors de la publication sur la
> liste de diffusion avant la tenue de la réunion d'afrinic parce qu'il
> s'avère qu'il n'y avait apparemment que 2 commentaires qui ont été prise en
> compte dans la version présenté lors de la réunion d'Afrinic.
> Si réellement il y a eu un accord et consentement du plus grand nombre de
> l'opinion publique, alors il y a consensus.
> Je ne suis pas de l'avis de Lu parceque lui prône la boucle dans la
> procédure PDP et préconise que lorsque la majorité ne peut convaincre la
> minorité même celle-ci a des arguments objectivement prouvés, la
> proposition devrait être carrément rejeté. A certain moment,les discussions
> doivent prendre fin l'avis du plus grand nombre peut être adopté.
> Dans toute discussion d'un texte, il y a aussi le contexte qui compte, les
> intérêts en jeu (d'où la rivalité entre les pro et les contre) et je crois
> l'idéal ici c'est d'avoir un moindre mal, un consensus approximatif.
> Dewole,
> Thank you for this clarification with supporting arguments, I do not find
> among the objections made before the afrinic meeting, the conversation or
> objection that Andrew evoked where he reported to one of the co-chair his
> disapproval. Because it was based on this element to challenge the
> consensus declared by the working group. If really, things happened as
> described by Dewole then the detractors of this policy were surely
> distressed during the publication on the mailing list before the meeting of
> Afrinic because it turns out that There were apparently only 2 comments
> that were taken into account in the version presented at the Afrinic
> meeting.
> If there really was an agreement and consent of the majority of the public
> opinion, then there is consensus.
> I do not agree with Lu because he advocates the loop in the PDP procedure
> and advocates that when the majority can not convince the minority even
> this one has objectively proven arguments, the proposal should be outright
> rejected. At certain times, the discussions must end the opinion of the
> greatest number can be adopted.
> In any discussion of a text, there is also the context that matters, the
> interests at stake (hence the rivalry between pro and cons) and I believe
> the ideal here is to have a lesser evil , a rough consensus.
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list