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

[rpd] clarification on pending ratifications

Fri Apr 9 08:11:50 UTC 2021

Hi Noah,

To make it short, and not keep going on with this discussion.

Following the PDP, *if the chairs declared consensus*, and anyone doesn’t agree, it has to use the conflict resolution, so discuss it with the chairs and if still not resolved, submit an appeal.

The text that you put in red, in the way you’re interpreting will mean that the chairs determination of consensus need to be re-determined by the PDWG (so the PDWG need to re-confirm that the confirmation of consensus was right, and then who confirms that the PDWG re-confirmation is correct and so on), which is impossible and will in fact mean that we don’t need chairs.

Even if the Recall Committee has said that the judgements of the co-chairs were not following the PDP, the Recall Committee has not said that all their decisions are invalid (and I don’t think that is one of their attributions, which we could decide that need to be changed in the future by amending it in the PDP), because the invalidation of the decisions can only be made by the Appeal Committee.

Otherwise, if you follow your rationale, we could also ask that the decisions about non-consensus regarding other policies such as AS0, abuse-c, etc., etc., were also invalid and there was consensus and the AC decisions must be ignored.

If the process is wrong, we need to amend it, but bending it when there is no possible missinterpretation, is broken.

PD: The IETF that you cited is under discussion since some time ago … for many reasons too long to explain and not pertinent to this list, however, I’ve no doubt that most of the participants already think is invalid.




El 8/4/21 20:32, "Noah" <noah at> escribió:

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

Hi Noah,

In a generic way:

a. 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?

a. 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.

b. 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".

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