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

[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up

Lee Howard lee.howard at
Wed Mar 14 20:28:51 UTC 2018

Thank you for bringing this to the list. I am new to this conversation, 
but I did read the proposed policy and the meeting notes you included below.

I am confused about section 3.4 Consensus.

The proposed text says, "Most of the decisions in the working group 
operations and discussions on policy proposals are made through rough 
consensus, unless specified otherwise."

I could not find a case that was specifie otherwise. Would there ever be 
a case?

I think from 3.4.1 Minor Objections that those are objections where the 
person objecting agrees that the advantages of the proposal outweigh 
their objections.
I think from 3.4.2 Major objections that they are defined as those where 
the person objecting cannot accept the proposal.

But then I'm confused because it said, "Consensus is reached on a 
proposal if the PDWG is able to successfully work through all objections 
in this way. It is not necessary for everyone to agree with the proposal."

If I were PDWG chair, in order to understand consensus, I would have to 
ask each person who spoke at the  microphone at a meeting, or on the 
mailing list, whether they support the proposal, have a minor objection, 
or a major objection. If they described it as a major objection, it 
would have to be listed as such somewhere (an issues list in Git?), and 
the PDWG or authors would have to explicitly address that point and come 
to consensus on whether it could be accommodated or not, and then the 
PDWG would have to reach consensus on whether the accommodation was 

But at the end of 3.4.3 Reaching consensus, it says "Consensus is 
achieved when everyone consents to the decision of the group." That 
still sounds like one person objecting can block a proposal, which is 
the opposite of "It is not necessary for everyone to agree."

Can someone explain this to me a little more?

Thank you,


On 03/08/2018 02:01 PM, Komi Elitcha wrote:
> Dear working group,
> Following Afrinic-27 in Lagos and the policy discussions[1], the 
> authors of the policy proposal AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02[2] would 
> like to encourage community to submit further comments  or 
> suggestions  they may have, while awaiting the next version of the 
> policy proposal.
> [1] 
> [2] 
> "AFRINIC Policy Development Process Bis" authors,
> -- 
> --KE
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

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

More information about the RPD mailing list