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

[rpd] clarification on pending ratifications

Noah noah at
Thu Apr 8 18:32:24 UTC 2021

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 6:21 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at>

> Hi Noah,


> In a generic way:


> 1. The PDP interpretation of when consensus has been reached is in the

> 3.4.3 (last call).


> 1. In the previous last call, were there valid objections or not?

2. In the previous last call, did all participants in the PDWG discussions
that took place agree?
3. In the previous last call, was staff impact analysis considered as
requested by participants in the discussions that transpired?

> 1. That declaration of consensus is the one done by the co-chairs, not

> the PDWG.


> “The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the

AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval *if it has the consensus of the
Policy Development Working Group.*


> 1. If anyone (the PDWG) believes there is no consensus at that stage,

> the way is not cancelling the “approval” (3.4.4), but instead using the

> conflict resolution (3.5).




Well we have two pending appeals that resulted in disagreements by
participants of the PDWG against the decision by former co-chairs on
proposals that had yet to achieve PDWG consensus .



Now, if we talk about the inter-RIR proposal, as said before, I fully agree

> with you that the declaration of consensus was anomalous in many senses,

> and that’s why we have the appeals that need to be resolved. Just facts.


Ack....... +1



> However, if we talk about the other proposal (board prerogatives), there

> was no objection within the last-call, there was no appeal. Again, just

> facts.


The archives say otherwise Jordi..... as per [1],[2], [3]

[1] Ish Sookun -
[2] Daniel - *and*
[3] Noah - *and*

And Afrinic staff also presented their impact analysis [4] that included
some of the valid objections from participants



> I know very well the definition of consensus, but you need to read and

> “execute” the PDP in the order as written, otherwise has no sense. So

> “determination of rough consensus – 3.4.2”, then last-call (3.4.3) and

> finally approval (3.4.4). The chairs are responsible (bot the PDWG) to

> determine if the consensus is sustained in 3.4.3. If they fail, we have to

> appeal.


And in this case, the PDWG did not have an agreement and co-chairs in their
determination ignored all the valid objections including staff impact
analysis sought by the PDWG participants during the last call.

So the process in 3.4.3 was flawed which is why participants invoked the
process in section 3.5 (1) and (2).....



> And yes I full agree that the communication of the chairs to the board,

> should be done copy to the PDWG,


Yes, as has been the tradition and practise in the past. PDWG has to also
read the report that is being sent to the board.

but it doesn’t change the fact that the consensus is determined by

> co-chairs, otherwise, we don’t need them.


They decide whether consensus has been achieved only if the proposal has
the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group.

And by consensus of the PDWG, it means that no valid objections are
unaddressed and all members of the WG are happy to leave the proposal and
this is what you are missing.


*PS: As an example.....the IETF runs on the beliefs of its participants.
One of the "founding beliefs" is embodied in an early quote about the IETF
from David Clark: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in
rough consensus and running code".*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list