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

[rpd] End of Last Call for SL Update and IPv6 PI Clarification Policies

Dewole Ajao dewole at
Thu Aug 8 11:10:11 UTC 2019

Hehehe I see you, Timothy.

At the risk of being burnt at the stakes, I will share a personal
experience. In the buildup to a public policy meeting, I was doing a
more in-depth study of a policy proposal that was on the docket and I
realized that the opening sections of the proposal did not properly
answer the questions asked in the proposal template. Somehow, we the
co-chairs had paid more attention to ensuring publication and
announcement in line with PDP timelines than to the actual contents of
the proposal. By the time I was making the observation, the proposal was
already published and conversations ongoing regarding the contents; at
that point, it was too late to bring it up without appearing like I was
trying to sabotage the proposal.

Things that we can improve on:

1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this policy proposal. -
This block of text should be clearly defined as a problem. If party A
sees it as a problem and party B does not see it as a problem, we are
likely to have a problem (depending on how strongly party B feels about
the proposed solution as opposed to the status quo).

2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem. - This block of
text should summarize the approach proposed as solution to the perceived
problem. There's a lot competing for people's time and attention. By
viewing this without having through comb through pages of text, PDWG
participants immediately know where/how to direct their energy.

If proposal authors, co-chairs and staff can strictly ensure that
proposals properly answer these questions before going into details of
proposed policy, we can reduce the level of ambiguity and hopefully
improve the quality of our discussions.


Dewole (who now accepts responsibility for not paying enough attention
to items 1 and 2 of the policy proposal template)

On 8/8/2019 8:55 AM, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa wrote:

> True Dewole 👌🏾


> But my concern is how reasonable is reasonable? Especially, giving the

> way policy discussions have fared on this list in the past.


> Me will support whatever will make us adhere strictly to the deadlines.


> Just thinking aloud!


> Sent from my OnePlus mobile device! </>$aa;


> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, 7:03 AM Dewole Ajao, <dewole at

> <mailto:dewole at>> wrote:


> Your active contribution to the RPD is appreciated, Sylvain. While

> not holding brief for the current co-chairs && while agreeing that

> we could do better in terms of timely execution, I think that for

> any number of reasons, an earlier announced date could have been

> missed - especially if nobody made comments on the subject matter

> and/or we all forgot/neglected to check on the progress on the list.


> As to your concern about someone getting the opportunity to make a

> late comment because he forgot the deadline and the co-chairs did

> not close on the set date, I think you should look at it like this:

> If the late comment is reasonable (apart from its late timing) and

> helps us make better policy, this group and its chairs will have

> to take it into consideration regardless of the missed timelines.

> I believe consideration of reasonable inputs should supersede

> strict timelines.


> Regards,


> Dewole.


> On 8/7/2019 8:07 PM, Sylvain BAYA wrote:


>> Hi all,


>> Thanks for your notification Abdulkarim.

>> Please other comments below (inline)...


>> Le 8/7/2019 à 10:20 AM, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE a écrit :

>>> Dear PDWG members,


>>> You would recall that on 18th  July 2019, we announced that last

>>> call for the following policy proposals would end on 25 July 2019.


>> ...for sure, but today we are the 07th of august 2019 :-)

>>> - SL Update

>>> - IPv6 PI Clarification


>>> This is to formally declare that the last call period for the

>>> above proposals indeed came to a close on 25 July 2019, and

>>> since there were no issues arising during that period, the

>>> consensus decision from AFRINIC30 is still maintained.


>> There is no clear rule (/CPM sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 /) about

>> the exact moment to notify

>> the PDWG that the last call period is ended ; but i think it's

>> important that the Chairs

>> make an extra (if needed) effort to send this notification the

>> day following the last

>> call date. Because, if someone forget the deadline, he can

>> comment on a policy which

>> is no longer open to comments (/that is Morgan's Law/) :-)

>>> Co-Chairs will now send a report to the Board recommending

>>> ratification of the two above proposals in line with CPM 3.0.


>> Dear Chairs, IMHO when a policy reaches consensus i think that it

>> means that the Policy

>> Community (or PDWG) have aggreed to have it implemented ASAP.

>> Again, even if it's, right

>> now, just an operational (/means only depends on Chairs

>> decision/) question, i think you

>> Chairs should consider this task as a priority. Because if you

>> send your report earlier,

>> the policy will be implemented earlier i guess :-)


>> ...i count two weeks since 2019.07.25, then if your mail was

>> informing us that you have

>> already sent the report to the BoD, i'ld have seen no problem ;

>> but it took you two weeks

>> to tell us (/without //any timing/) that you will send a report

>> to the BoD.


>> Excuse me but, i'm still new on these policy things, so maybe i'm

>> missing something ?

>>> Thank You


>> Thanks.


>> All my encouragements to your efforts !


>> Shalom,

>> --sb.

>>> Co-Chairs


>>> [...]

>> --


>> Regards,

>> Sylvain B.

>> <> <>

>> __

>> Website :<> <>

>> Wiki :<> <>


>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>


> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>



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

More information about the RPD mailing list