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

[rpd] Report on the Policy Proposal “AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07" (IPv4 Soft Landing BIS).

Sander Steffann sander at
Wed Mar 21 11:21:23 UTC 2018


> It would be good to know what  to expect from the authors now that we have an Appeal Committee with a different definition of consensus, which at its discretion and in violation of the PDP can overrule the Co-Chairs.
> Can the Co-chairs  tell us which consensus process shall prevail?  The rfc7282 rough consensus we’ve been following upon the PDP up till this point or the new Appeal Committee’s notion of consensus?

Since we obviously disagree on this, can we ask the appeals committee to comment on this? I think it's unfair to the chairs to ask them to make a statement on this as they were one of the involved parties in the appeal. I'll also not make a statement, as I am one of the involved parties too.

In other words: let's not ask the accuser or the accused what they think, let's ask the judge.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list