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

[rpd] Decisions on policy proposals discussed during themeeting

Owen DeLong owen at
Sun Dec 22 19:36:09 UTC 2019

> On Dec 22, 2019, at 00:38 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at> wrote:


> Humm ! Please PDWG community find, in lines reactions of co-authors for the persecuted proposal.

Characterizing the proposal as “persecuted” is rather absurd hyperbole.

There are legitimate objections to the proposal which have been raised and remain unaddressed. In essence a significant fraction of the community
has declared that they are opposed to the authors’ core intent in the proposal. As such, it is unlikely that the proposal can reach consensus so long
as authors’ intent remains the same.

Some times a proposal can be modified to address objections to certain portions. Some times a proposal’s core intent just isn’t compatible with
the will of [some significant fraction] of the community. In this latter case, the proposal should be dropped after reasonable debate. Unfortunately,
authors wish to substitute their opinion for the collective wisdom of the community and continue to push for this proposal against all objections.

> 10. Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC draft8 (Co-Chairs Decision: No Consensus )

> <>

> This proposal has not reached consensus after many iterations spanning over 8 iterations spanning over 3 years (from May 2016).

> The proposal sets a framework for AFRINIC to conduct reviews/audits of resource utilization by members (to ensure efficient and appropriate use).

> • Audits can be random or selected (by AFRINIC) or reported (by whistle-blower).

> • Resources not complying are recovered and can be reallocated.


> The Co-chairs are considering dropping this policy entirely because it has been around for some time without achieving consensus. It is also noticed that the authors failed to attempt to address a lot of concerns.

> Co-chairs have spent a lot of time on this proposal (over the last 1 month) reviewing comments and responses from previous meetings and believe that the authors did not address or attempt to address most of the major issues raised in the latest version.

> It strange that Co-chairs spent so much time on this proposal, and was not possible to produce the list of issues not addressed before or at the PPM to help the discussions.

If nothing else, the following unaddressed issue pretty well covers the entire problem:

This proposal is an attack vector which allows individuals to weaponize AfriNIC against organizations, providing a disproportionate effect on larger organizations with very little cost or repercussion to the potential attacker.

It is unlikely that this issue can be addressed in any proposal meeting authors’ clear intent and authors have repeatedly ignored this issue in their multiple updates to the proposal.

There are other objections which remain, but this is the one I believe is least likely to ever be sufficiently addressed.

> I am also glad to see the expression "major issues" used by Co-chairs while we were told there no such thing as suggested in PDP-bis. Can we have your definition of "major objection”

Personally, I believe the co-chairs use of that term is in error as the term remains undefined.

The terms which should (IMHO) be considered are substantive and sustained objections. (sustained as in continuing, not as in the ruling of a judge over an objection).

The above core objection is both substantive (in that it strikes at the heart of the proposal and has been expressed by multiple members of the community representing several organizations.

> The CPM allows us to vary the process in the best interest of the community hence we shall work with the authors of this proposal in the coming months to see if there can be a way forward on this proposal.

> There must be a way forward on this proposal the 8 iterations during the 3 years matured the proposal well enough as you can see in the revision history.

> It is important to keep in mind that all objections must addressed, but not all can acommodated

Why does there have to be a way forward? I would argue that after 8 iterations in 3 years, the fact that the proposal still cannot achieve anything resembling consensus is evidence that the proposal is fundamentally incompatible with the desires fo the community and it is time to give up on int.

It is also important to keep in mind that no proposal has a right to consensus. In most regions, something approximating 50% of all proposals fail to achieve consensus and end up abandoned. The long lived failure of this proposal is a rare example of a proposal which has failed and yet remains a focus of the community.

> A decision shall be made based on this before the next policy meeting to avoid wasting the limited and precious time during the policy meeting.

> There are ways of better utilization the precious time during PPM: reduce the DDoS on the PDP with the numerous last minute proposals, reduce number of competite proposals, moderate and encourage discussions on proposals, keep issue list and drive discussions to closure.

Save the last one, all of your suggestions would involve limiting free speech and disenfranchising proposal authors.

I agree that having the co-chairs track the open issues with each proposal and driving discussions towards closure would be useful.
However, closure does NOT necessarily mean consensus. It might mean a determination that a given policy has little or no chance of achieving consensus.

Currently, the PDP provides no mechanism for the co-chairs to address this problem. I believe that an ability to abandon proposals which have been to at least two meetings without achieving consensus should be added to the PDP.

> A proposal cannot continue to have an infinite loop hence the need to vary the process.

> We shall be grateful if you could vary the process using section 3.6 of the CPM, as you will arrange for the proposal to be fast tracked and adopted online before being presented at the next PPM.

How can this occur… The proposal has nothing at all resembling consensus. Multiple objections remain, including the above objection which is fundamentally incompatible with the authors intent.

Varying the process is one thing. Abandoning it altogether in favor of bypassing the need for consensus would be outrageous.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list