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

[rpd] Appeal on AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07 Softlanding policy

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Tue Mar 6 12:14:07 UTC 2018


Thanks for the report.. see below on the technicality…...

Based on 3.5(*) of the PDP, a group of PDPWG members appealed against PDPWG co-chairs decision to recommend the softlanding-bis  policy proposal for ratification by AFRINIC BoD.

The appeal committee issued a report which concluded that "the Co-chairs erred in their declaration of consensus at the end of the Last Call period. The appeal then succeeds."

- The appeal Committee focused its review on the declaration of consensus instead on the PDP approach to consensus.

-  By doing so, the appeal committee usurped the co-chairs powers to evaluate and  declare consensus, although the appeal committee recognised itself that according to the PDP, the co-chairs have the mandate to declare consensus. Section VII of the report.

- The appeal committee stated (section VII of the report) and i quote:

    "The Committee observed in the PDP that the Co-chairs are required to evaluate consensus in the PDP following the three principles of openness, transparency and fairness at the following two steps only: 

         a. face-to-face Public Policy Meeting as required in Section 3.4.2 of the PDP and 
          b. last call period as required in Section 3.4.3 of the PDP. "

- The appellants in section 1 of the appeal refers to  consensus as and i quote: 

     " The definition of rough consensus that is globally accepted within the RIR is defined by a lack of objections that are sustained and unaddressed. The latter being more important than the former. Basically – what this means is – it is imperative that the authors of a proposal address each separate objection, even in the event of them not being able to resolve said objection. More documentation of this can be found in RFC-7282."

- Furthermore, the appeal committee has not demonstrated how the co-chairs decisions did not follow the principles of "openness", "transparency" and "fairness"

In the view of above,

The appeal committee went beyond its scope as defined by section 3.5 of the PDP, 

The appeal committee has a wrong definition of PDP consensus, which differs from the appellants definition of consensus in the PDP.

So, the Appeal committee failed to address the complaint.


3.5 Conflict Resolution

	a	A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or with the PDWG. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board of Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions.

	b	The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the Working Group. The Appeal Committee may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has not been followed.

> On 3 Mar 2018, at 14:05, wafa DAHMANI <wafa at> wrote:
> Dear Community,
> The appeal committee has published  its report on the Appeal against the declared consensus on the AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT-07 Softlanding-Bis policy
> and the report is available at the following URL:
> <>
> Best
> Wafa Dahmani
> chair of the Appeal Committee
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list