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

[rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy (Data Loss)

Mark Elkins mje at
Mon Dec 3 16:18:01 UTC 2018

On 12/3/18 4:28 PM, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa wrote:
> +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.

My understanding is that the Data corruption happened in or around 2010.
I became a Board Member from around AfriNIC-10 (Cairo) in 2009 and was a
Board Member for 6 years until June 2015 - after AfriNIC-15 in
Tunis/Tunisia. I never heard about the data loss until last week (end of
November, 2018).

> 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.
> Best!
> Ti</>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, 2:53 PM Nishal Goburdhan
> <nishal at <mailto:nishal at> wrote:
>     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 <mailto:RPD at>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list