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

[rpd] Proposal Update received: Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC

Arnaud AMELINA amelnaud at
Mon Jun 10 09:24:25 UTC 2019


Thanks for the quick review and thanks for spending your time to review and
comment on the unnecessary, duplicative, Ill-advised proposal.

We appreciate your comments and suggestions and will consider them.

Even though, there is no room for the acknowledgment session in the CPM, it
remains a good way to acknowledge effort and contribution of people
throughout the proposal lifecycle.Same remark applies to the authors who
are not  also listed  in the CPM.

We continue to disagree on definition of “community” and “ consensus”  and
I expect the PDP to  be followed to determine the future of this proposal.


Le dim. 9 juin 2019 à 15:58, Owen DeLong <owen at> a écrit :

> I have reviewed the diff and have the following comments. I limit my
> review and my comments to the scope of the proposed policy text. I have
> made no effort to address anything outside of the proposal itself other
> than to say that at least according to the Diff, the numbering of the
> non-policy sections got badly screwed up at the beginning.
> 1. It does not appear to address any of my previous objections.
> 2. 13.3.1 should read “…have not been” rather than “…has not been”. (has
> would be for a singular, whereas the use her is plural)
> 3. While the structure in 13.3.2 is cleaned up, there is no material
> change to the proposal here.
> 4. 13.3.3 retains all of its original problems as previously described by
> many, myself included.
> 5. Section 13.4 Line 51, I must ask how addresses can be found to be
> non-compliant. I suggest instead that the grammar be cleaned up as follows:
> AfriNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process to reclaim sufficient
> resources to restore resource holder to compliance.
> 6. 13.4 in general is awkwardly structured and not in a logical order.
> Consequences defined at the beginning of the section fit better after the
> rules spelled out in A) and B), for example.
> 7. 13.5 “Results on the review” should be “Results of the review”.
> 8. The acknowledgements are ill-conceived and have no place in the CPM.
> If the authors wish to acknowledge these people, they are free to do so
> wherever they wish,  but said acknowledgement is not legitimate policy and
> has no place being inserted into the CPM.
> In summary, this update does nothing to address concerns previously
> expressed. It does appear to clean up some of the previous grammatical and
> syntactic errors, but it also introduces new ones. This proposal remains
> unnecessary, duplicative, harmful, and ill-advised. I again urge the
> authors to withdraw it based on the complete lack fo community consensus
> and their utter unwillingness to make changes that address the actual
> issues.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list