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

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

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Mon Apr 8 17:31:07 UTC 2019

I agree.


On 08/04/2019 13:43, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> Jordi I don't think you've done anything wrong, you've proposed a 
> policy, and it's in order as far as am concerned. If a member believe 
> some part of the text needs further reconsideration then he/she should 
> state that clearly
> I would not expect any author to propose a draft without some form of 
> personal analysis/checks(detailed or not) as that is what will better 
> inform the problem statement. I hope the discussion will focus on the 
> substance of the proposal and not on whether the author have done 
> sufficient analysis or not.
> Regards
> Sent from my mobile
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, 12:17 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD, 
> <rpd at <mailto:rpd at>> wrote:
>     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:
>      1. The staff assessment.
>      2. Community discussion.
>      3. 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.
>     Regards,
>     Jordi
>     El 8/4/19 17:51, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto:sm%2Baf 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.
>     Regards
>         Regards,
>         S. Moonesamy
>     _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
>     RPD at <mailto: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.
>     _______________________________________________
>     RPD mailing list
>     RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list