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

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

Timothy Ola Akinfenwa akin.akinfenwa at
Mon Dec 3 14:28:44 UTC 2018

+1 Nishal, this clarification was indeed necessary and helped a great deal.

One of the objections that slightly align to my thoughts were seen asked or
raised by someone recently. It can be found here,

The issue of data corruption and lack of documentation is a recent
development that was made to fore just few days ago, at least I never knew
that existed and I'm are still waiting for clarification, but this time
from AFRINIC not the authors.

I know a few were claiming the financial implications of implementing this
policy will be huge on AFRINIC and impracticable. However, I made a comment
on the list that I'm sure staff assessment must have covered and clarified
this position. If this was already stated in the RSA, then it was only
logical that the necessary budget be made to accommodate it, simple IMHO.
Therefore, I don't see this as an issue but the authors are free to clear
any doubts on that, may be.

More so, I saw some comments and suggestions made via Staff Assessment on
the last Draft 06 of the proposal. I will like to confirm if and how the
comments were accomodated in the proposal, yet without any update to it
since April.

At this point, let me mention that the sentiments and emotions shown here
are unnecessary. There should be no need for any name calling either. Let
every opposer of this policy articulate their objections together and
clearly state them here or just point the community and authors to where
they have been previously raised but not addressed, then we can move
forward from there.



On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 2:53 PM Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at

> On 3 Dec 2018, at 13:24, Daniel Yakmut wrote:
> daniel,
> > This clearly showed that the
> > authors of the Review Policy do not care about any input from the
> > community.
> the sentence above is unnecessary.  we understand this is an emotive
> subject, but please try to debate the issue(s), and not the person.
> > From the last date of submission, it means nothing was considered by
> > the
> > authors from input made in Dakar meeting.
> that could be better re-written as:  we have confirmation that no
> changes were made to the policy, to accommodate any of the potential
> outcomes from dakar.
> now, that’s not quite the same as saying they did not consider
> changes;  just that _no action_ was made on those considerations  ;-)
> but more on that below.
> > This means the policy remained as is without any input or review for
> > over
> > six months.
> we have confirmation that this is correct.
> > Making it stale and should have been dicarded.
> this is incorrect.  policies can be unchanged for up to a year.
> sometimes, it takes a while to gather information, for
> presentation/action.
> > Can I then conclude that the PDP Co-Chairs erred to have allowed the
> > policy
> > come.up.for discussion in Tunisia.
> no.  the co-chairs did not err in allowing discussion;  there is no
> break from the rules of the PDP.
> i believe that, in the absence of changes to accommodate any outcomes
> from dakar, this should not have gone to last call.
> there’s a very human understanding that:
> # if something is broken, and
> # if nothing changes to fix it, then
> # the original thing can still considered broken
> and i think that there are many people on the list that might simply
> have viewed the current version of the policy in this manner.
> but, this all predicates that there _were_ actual outcomes in dakar.
> the policy did not get passed in dakar, but were there recommendations,
> or salient discussions on the mailing list, for the authors to address,
> that were not actioned?  because, if there _are_ material problems that
> were recorded and acknowledged (at least by the community) and not
> addressed, then sure, there’s no case for last call.  but if there
> were no material objections in dakar, and the policy was sent back just
> for more discussion, then who knows, perhaps the last call for this
> version is warranted.
> here’s a different example - there was an update proposed to the
> SL-policy, and the co-chairs sent this back to the mailing list for more
> discussion.  there were no material objections (and, even though i
> posted a question about this, that’s _not_ an objection), and if this
> comes up for discussion again at the next meeting, it would be incorrect
> to say that simply because it’s unchanged, it can’t be considered
> for last call.  (please don’t detract in anything other than it being
> “unchanged”)
> so, to those that are saying that there’s still a problem, can you
> please rather cite an example of an existing action/update/request that
> remains unanswered, instead of simply saying:  “i don’t agree”.
> because that’s something the co-chairs can work with.
> —n.
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list