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

[rpd] Policy Development Process Bis v4 issues

Marcus K. G. Adomey madomey at
Mon Dec 3 14:51:30 UTC 2018

Hi Jordi,

Thank you for the list of issues you felt needed to be pointed out with the PDP-Bis v4 draft policy. Nevertheless, I have few concerns that need to be raised.

First and foremost, I do not sense a collaborative tone specially with the first 2 points. The words “erroneous” and “doesn’t make sense” does not carry decency and respect for the AFRINIC community.  It is my opinion that a positive contribution to the  development of this community should carry a much better approach, show some courtsey in the forum. And we all hope you don’t want to take us back to the area of tension and unrest we went through few months ago and gladly left  behind.

This work is not about reinventing the wheel and the authors acknowledged  in section 4.0 the main sources of ideas...
4.0 Acknowledgements
This proposal is mainly based on the intensive discussions we had on the current PDP during 2016 and 2017 on RPD mailing list. It addresses the issues by referring to best practices from IETF and the PDP of other RIRs.

Secondly, allow me to point you back to your own word in Dakar regarding version 3 and I quote:

<<It's difficult to make it perfect the first round, so that is my reason to support it. I think it's quite good and it's very, very close to what we have, and I think it's one of the best PDPs that we have in the community.>>

You can then understand how surprised I must be to see such a drastic radical change of opinion. More so as version 4.0 just addressed the community consensus-based  issues.

Now that  you have clearly expressed how you feel about this policy and pointed out what you think are its  weaknesses, would you be so kind and show a constructive approach by  offering useful amendment texts while keeping in mind that it is difficult to make it perfect on the 1st round.

I am afraid to tell you that you are about to create a difficult working condition for the fine tuning of the PDP if you are not capable  of understanding  these basic principles. In all case let not obstruct unnecessary the long effort of   this community to modernise  its PDP.



Get Outlook for Android<>

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 9:03:33 PM
To: rpd List
Subject: [rpd] Policy Development Process Bis v4 issues

Hi all,

As promised in the meeting, this is the list of issues that I've identified when I was reading the last version, last night.

It may require some more explanation point by point (hopefully we can start a discussion on those), as those are just my own notes when I was reading it, but definitively something to start to work.

What it more worries me is the complexity of the suggested process, this will decrease participation.

1) Definition of Consensus is incomplete and erroneous
2) The distinction among minor and major objections doesn’t make sense
3) Consensus determined only in the meeting (there is no timing for the discussion in the list)
4) Contradictory, consensus is not unanimity
5) Leave the chairs to decide. Providing so much details to them in the PDP means they can’t “move” on their own. Community elected them, community need to trust them. If they are erred, there is an appeal process.
6) Phases stated are complex and unnecessary. Looks like trying to copy the RIPE PDP but with broken things. Will difficult the community participation.
7) The PDP can’t avoid having competing proposals, it is good for the process and the community to investigate several choices.
8) The WG should not decide against a policy proposal if is in scope of the PDP (so adoption phase doesn’t apply)
9) End of discussion phase brings subjective documentation of the process, biasing the community.
10) Impact analysis should include “more” and not bias the community
11) What happens if the timing with the review phase and the next meeting doesn’t match?
12) In the Concluding phase, it is not clear why a proposal should go back to either the discussion or the review phase
13) Implementation waiver from who? The implementation timing is up to the staff and should be informed in the impact analysis
14) In the RIPE PDP we made last September a change, as there was a mistake in the process, following a policy proposal that I’ve authored, regarding the non-consensus after the review phase. I think you missed that point …
15) There is no point in asking for 3 individuals for an appeal. If a single community member wants to appeal a PDP decision and can't, I'm convinced he has the right to go to courts, because it is not inclusive


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.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list