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

[rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy Development Process Bis

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue May 21 07:13:55 UTC 2019

>> 7) The PDP can’t avoid having competing proposals, it is good for the process and the community to investigate several choices. It is a way for an author or a group of them to block the community progress. If I've an idea and send a proposal and the community don't like it but I'm not improving the text along the discussions, a possible way out is an alternative proposal.
> Competing proposals have not brought constructive outcomes for our community and we all concur to that. To address the problem you raised above, section has the following provision “Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grant(s) all rights to the working group and the proposal becomes a community document.”

This simply isn’t true. You may not like how we got there, you may not like the outcome, but competing proposals have definitely led to constructive outcomes in the past.

For example, a competing proposal led to the abandoment of the so-called SL-BIS proposal. That was most definitely a constructive outcome.

I’m not 100% convinced that a competing (somewhat contrary) proposal isn’t just the thing needed to help steer the discussion around the resource review proposal, either.

Prohbiiting proposals is a clear channel for PDP DOS. If someone wants to avoid positive progress on a topic, all they need to do is submit a negative proposal and keep “updating it” periodically without fully addressing anyone’s concerns. Since a competing proposal would not be allowed, they can thus preclude the community from advancing a more positive policy. Since there is no mechanism for the community to reject a proposal and it can remain on the docket so long as the author(s) continue to update it once per year, it becomes trivial to preserve the status quo for any (or even all) portions of the CPM as long as an author desires.

In fact, under that proposal, it could even become trivial for one individual to block any change to the PDP to get out of that situation.

This is a very serious flaw with the current proposed PDP Bis.

>> 10) Impact analysis should include “more”, but just objective inputs, and not bias the community.
> more than the followings ?
> • AFRINIC Ltd’s understanding of the proposed policy
> • Impact on the registry and Internet Number Resources
> • Impact on AFRINIC Ltd’s operations/services
> • Legal impact We trust staff to be objective in their analysis and community has the right to question and discuss the staff analysis

Yes… The analysis should also include the following:
	+	Cost to AfriNIC to implement/sustain the policy (revenue impact, implementation costs, administration costs)
	+	Any identifiable ambiguities or other flaws in the policy language which can cause difficulty in implementation
	+	Feasibility of implementation and timeline after board ratification (how long will it take to implement, what is required
			for implementation)
	+	Any risks to the community or the organization identified in implementation of the policy


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

More information about the RPD mailing list