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

[rpd] New Policy Proposal - Simple Update of the PDP (AFPUB-2018-GEN-002-DRAFT01)

Sun Dec 2 19:54:25 UTC 2018

Hi Ish,

If you read the actual CPM, 3.4.2 Public Policy Meeting
The draft policy is placed on the agenda of an open public policy meeting. The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two weeks prior to the meeting. No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft policy can be considered at the meeting. The Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.

There is *NO* option for the chairs to determine consensus from the list. In fact, this is the reason why it is mandated that the policy is presented in the meeting, and there is no timing to allow the chairs to determine the consensus in the list.

If you keep reading sections 3.4.3 and the rest of the PDP, there are several contradictory pieces of text, even the way we do the last call, etc.

Of course, I don't agree with this, however if the chairs determine consensus based on the list, anyone will be able to appeal, with our internal process or in courts, and he will be right.

That's the reason clearer text is needed, to avoid those risks and make sure that the community is clearly understanding that their opinion in the list counts even more than in the meeting.

Multiple emails may become a problem (it didn't happened in any RIR as I know), but we will notice it, especially because the way consensus should be reached (not counting). Please, read my definition of consensus, and you will see that this doesn't allow that trick.

3.1.1 Definition of “Consensus”

Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical objections have been resolved.

In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus.

Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many “emails” (virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal.

For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs and the IETF is actually that of “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this context, given that “consensus” (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.”

Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as “rough consensus”.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Ish Sookun <ish.sookun at>
Organización: La Sentinelle Ltd
Fecha: domingo, 2 de diciembre de 2018, 14:30
Para: rpd <rpd at>, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at>
CC: Dewole Ajao <dewole at>
Asunto: Re: [rpd] New Policy Proposal - Simple Update of the PDP (AFPUB-2018-GEN-002-DRAFT01)

    Dear Jordi,
    Section 3.4.2 of the CPM does state that the PDWG Chairs look for rough
    consensus. The later parts use the word consensus but I believe it's
    clear that it's rough consensus and should not be interpreted otherwise.
    However, I agree that it helps if more clarity is brought on how the
    rough consensus is achieved, which until now I believed it to be
    balancing both the discussions on the mailing and those at the PPM.
    Therefore, I felt that the proposed section is not really asking any
    change in the current process except bringing some clarity and reducing
    the announcement timeframe on the mailing list.
    Maybe the PDWG Chairs could help me understand whether I am wrong to
    believe that the current "rough consensus" already includes both
    participation on the RPD list and the PPM. I did ask a similar question
    [1] during a presentation by Dewole. It was more about how do PDWG
    Chairs deal with if authors try to influence a discussion in their favor
    by using multiple free email accounts and sending emails on the RPD list?
    Ish Sookun
    On 11/27/18 9:26 PM, Dewole Ajao wrote:
    > Dear PDWG Members,
    > An update from the author of proposal "Simple Update of the PDP" is now
    > published at
    > The update addresses feedback received since submission of the first
    > version. Please review ahead of our Public Policy Meeting on Thursday. 
    > Thank you.
    > Dewole Ajao & Sami Salih
    > PDWG Co-Chairs.
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > *From: *"Sami Salih" <sami.salih at>
    > *To: *"rpd" <rpd at>
    > *Sent: *Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:37:20 AM
    > *Subject: *[rpd] New Policy Proposal - Simple Update of the PDP
    > (AFPUB-2018-GEN-002-DRAFT01)
    > Dears AFRINIC PDWG Members,
    > Greetings,
    > A new new policy proposal has been received and published as follows:
    > Proposal : Simple Update of the PDP
    > Ref.No    : AFPUB-2018-GEN-002-DRAFT01
    > Author     : Jordi Palet Martinez
    > Link        
    > :
    > Your participation and contribution are welcome.
    > Sincerely,
    > PDWG Co-chairs
    > *Dr. Sami H.O. Salih*
    > Assistant Prof, School of Electronics Engineering, SUST
    > Head of R&D, NTC, SUDAN
    > President of SDv6TF
    > T/F: (249)122045707/187171355
    > _______________________________________________
    > RPD mailing list
    > RPD at
    > _______________________________________________
    > RPD mailing list
    > RPD at

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list