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

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

Thu Jun 13 10:25:38 UTC 2019

Hi Arnaud, Owen,


A short input about the ack section.


While I agree that they should not be part of the policy text, if you look at both previous versions and the actual one, it looks like the authors are including that as part of the policy text when they send it to the staff/co-chair for publication, but when this is actually published, this part is moved out of the policy text and put in an explicit new section.


By the way, the numbering of this section is broken in the publication, should be 4 instead of 5.


When I do documents for IETF, I always have an ack section and I explictly cite there *everyone* who has contributed to that document (not just grammar or typos). Not everybody does that, however I think is fair to recognize all the people contributing, but not just *some* of them.


That said, this is not a common practice in the PDP process, I’ve not seen that before in any RIR.


Not saying I’m against this, but if we do that, it should be for every contributor, and in every policy proposal, just to be fair.








El 13/6/19 11:39, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at> escribió:


Hi Owen, see inline  


Le lun. 10 juin 2019 à 17:27, Owen DeLong <owen at> a écrit :


On Jun 10, 2019, at 02:24 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> wrote:



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. 


Yes, but move it out of the proposed policy section of the proposal.


Why is this suddenly so important? it has been there since version 3.0 of the proposal.

Have you found another substantive objection?  do you have an issue with those listed there or concerned for those not listed? 

This objection will be addressed and accommodated. Section 4.0  will be removed.


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.


I expect the PDP to be followed, too. That is why I ask that the authors recognize the lack fo consensus and let it expire or withdraw it.


The community is the set of all natural persons who are interested in participating in the policy process and possess an email address which they can utilize for that purpose. Do you disagree with this definition?


The disagreement on community came from your claim of  “complete lack community consensus”. We have seen the opposite and wonder which “community” were you referring to.



As to consensus, I am following the IETF definition of rough consensus wherein all remaining objections have been addressed and there is wide support within the community for the proposal.


IETF consensus calls for all objections to be addressed and not necessary accommodated.
Consensus is a path and not a destination and looking at it as a destination takes you to the voting mentality which you are showing below by comparing  number of "dissenters" to "supporters".



Given that you have at least a roughly equal number of dissenters and supporters and that the number of dissenters seems to be growing rather than shrinking, I would argue that the authors have most definitely failed to achieve anything resembling rough consensus with this policy.


I know you as ARIN AC member, but not AFRINIC PDWG co-chair. Why are you trying to play co-chair? Co-chairs have been elected to lead the process including the consensus path.
Where did you get these numbers from? Are you counting those who are recruited to say  “ I oppose with no new arguments”?
The IETF rough consensus clearly stated that objection or support is not based on volume or persistence. 

Let assume a second that your numbers were correct. Can't you see that in the case  of “rough equal numbers”, you can’t say “complete lack of community consensus” ? 
At least, What one would expect in this kind of split situation, is that co-chairs facilitate the discussion for the concerns raised to be accommodated or reasons for not accommodating them explained  further.



If you feel that I am wrong about this, please explain what measure of “community” and what measure of “consensus” you are using. Perhaps you can educate me as to where my definitions do not match the PDP.


I hope the above clarify 











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.




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