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

[rpd] AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT02

Mon Apr 8 16:16:03 UTC 2019

Hi Seun, all,


(trying to be in the middle-point here)


As a very frequent author, not just in AfriNIC, but in all the RIRs, what I can say is that I always try to verify that the policy proposals are in-line with the bylaws, agreements, PDP and RIR scope. That’s why I mention before, that I’ve re-read today all those documents, in case I’ve missed anything when I was working in the proposal text.


Obviously, this is not “stated” in the PDP, but I think is somehow a must for any possible co-author willing to contribute in an efficient way, and avoids waste of time for the staff and community. Note here, that I don’t consider waste of time when a proposal doesn’t reach consensus, is part of the process, but when a poorly written proposal or clearly against the scope of AfriNIC is submitted.


That said, clearly a single pair of eyes (or a few of them when several co-authors), is not as efficient as doing as well:
The staff assessment.
Community discussion.
Efficient evolution of the proposal, track of changes/suggestions/improvements along the discussion and the staff assessment.

I think this is clearly the intent of the PDP, overall.






El 8/4/19 17:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at> escribió:


Sent from my mobile

Kindly excuse brevity and typos


Hello SM,

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, 11:13 S. Moonesamy, <sm+af at> wrote:

Hi Seun,
At 07:57 AM 08-04-2019, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Since you were once a pdwg co-chair how about you share your 
>experience about how the analysis work was done during your time. 
>You may also want to point to the section of the PDP that suggests 
>that it isn't staff that does draft analysis (since you authored it)

I used to do an analysis of a proposal (as author) before submitting it.


SO: The question was not whether you do analysis as author but whether you do so and publish same as co-chair. Since you seem to basically be saying that the author of the proposal being discussed may not have done an analysis? though you didn't point me to where that was required in the PDP? You could simply ask him for the specific analysis you are hoping for instead of directing that to the co-chairs


The last time I checked an author including his/her analysis isn't a requirement but including a problem statement is. It is then up to the author to decide on whether including some analysis will be useful to better provide clarity on the problem statement.


The analysis/review that is however required and mandated by the PDP is that of staff.



S. Moonesamy 

_______________________________________________ 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.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list