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

[rpd] Last Call Announcement - IPv4 Soft Landing - bis (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07)

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Fri Dec 15 21:35:55 UTC 2017

There is already a dispute - there is an appeal regarding the decision to put this policy into last call in the first place.

Should the policy pass last call - that will be appealed as well.

But right now myself and others contest the decision to take this policy to last call in the clear absence of consensus as demonstrated through 2 straight years of sustained objections,  including I might add multiple requests to withdraw made in Mauritius and in kenya, and multiple objections the authors chose to entirely ignore and questions they chose not to address


How do you deal with the isps that have invested in infrastructure and need space today - and the fact that you are now holding back a resource based on a potential theoretical usasge of space in the future while those that need it to number consumers today and who have invested heavily now go without.

This has never been addressed and was raised time and again - see the Mauritian videos - see the Kenyan videos - see the list archives.  That is a sustained objective and the authors have an obligation to respond and address (if not resolve) every objection made - irrespective of who made it

That is the nature of the consensus process


Get Outlook for iOS<>
From: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 1:14:48 PM
To: rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call Announcement - IPv4 Soft Landing - bis (AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07)

I am a bit worried about the harried setting up of the interim appeal committee. I was asking myself is there a dispute already, and will cause an appeal. I think we have jump several guns with this proposal.

It has caused some to suspect the process and outcome. We needed to be more open on our discussions.

On Dec 15, 2017 5:08 PM, "caleb olumuyiwa" <muyiwacaleb at<mailto:muyiwacaleb at>> wrote:
Many thanks Nishal for last email. You have written well.
I haven't seen any specific reason why Andrew will predetermine what report should or not be sent by the Co-chairs to the Board. The procedure posted earlier by Omo was clear enough. With due respect, I personally think the attacks the Co-chairs to assume there is no rough consensus  on this policy by raising dust and accussing them before a procedural report is sent amounts to bullying.
Additionally, if most members of the community aren'traising issues with the last call with there silence, it probably suggest the community is favouring the outcome of this policy. Like the adage goes... "Silence means consent". If you have issues with it, deal with the appeal committee that has been set up for arbitration and conflict resolution.
AFRINIC PDP is bigger than one individual. We have much to gain from respecting laid down procedure.

Like I always note, we are young folks that has much to learn from the community. Kindly do not compound the learning process.

Caleb Ogundele

On Dec 15, 2017 11:49 AM, "Nishal Goburdhan" <nishal at<mailto:nishal at>> wrote:
On 15 Dec 2017, at 0:24, Andrew Alston wrote:

Correct Owen - the only time the board gets a report is to state that a policy has passed last call and consensus has been reached and they should ratify.

is there something in the PDP that specifically prevents the co-chairs from sending a report to the board if there is no consensus?
according to<> one of the duties of the co-chairs is:
“* Sending a report of the outcomes of policy discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of Directors.”

i read that as :
* this is what was discussed
* this is the outcome (whichever way it goes)

so, i don’t agree with the implication in this thread, that there is a pre-determined outcome.  all sami’s mail said was:  “.. the Co-chairs will send the report to the board”.  which i find to be appropriate.  i’m willing to bet, that the co-chairs fully intend to write a short report, whichever way their determination of consensus goes (ie. either yay or nay to the proposal), and *that* is what sami meant.


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

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

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

More information about the RPD mailing list