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

[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Mon Dec 3 11:51:43 UTC 2018


Actually the below link far from addresses the question at hand.

How does a policy gain consensus when it failed to gain it once before - without the concerns and substantive issues being addressed.  Either someone would have to withdraw their objections - or the objections which resulted in the failure of consensus would have to be addressed - which would at least in certain cases reflect in a change of the text.

Yes - the policy is still active - but it is active without consensus - since there is no way that consensus can reached without either a change in the policy or an explicit withdrawal of the MULTITUDE of objections that have been raised against this policy, so can the co-chairs please explain how this can happen in their view - because I think myself, and others are VERY confused as to how consensus could have been gained here.


From: Sami Salih <sami.salih at>
Sent: 03 December 2018 14:44
To: Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at>; Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at>
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Dear Daniel,

Your question has already addressed in a previous email this morning, So I hope you carefully follow the thread in the list to avoid unnecessary repetition.
Please refer to this link<>


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
From: Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 2:24 PM
To: Ernest Byaruhanga
Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy
Subject: Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy

Thank you Ernest for your kind response. This clearly showed that the authors of the Review Policy do not care about any input from the community.

>From the last date of submission, it means nothing was considered by the authors from input made in Dakar meeting.

This means the policy remained as is without any input or review for over six months. Making it stale and should have been dicarded.

Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have allowed the policy come.up.for discussion in Tunisia.

Is there no case of disregard for rules here?


On Mon, Dec 3, 2018, 12:04 PM Ernest Byaruhanga <ernest at<mailto:ernest at>> wrote:

> have there been any updates to this policy since the previous meeting.


Version 6 was received on 10 April 2018, and no newer version thereafter.

More info:<>


RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list