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

[rpd] Publication of Information Policy Proposal: Impact Assessment & Summary of Objections

Fri Nov 12 17:04:05 UTC 2021

Hi Chairs, all,


I’m going to respond with a copy of the text that I’ve provided to the staff when sending the new version. I think it is sufficiently clarifying, and once more, the IA can’t be considered as concerns/objections to a policy proposal.


The proposal is not stating, to avoid micro-management, how the information should be published. I suspect that the easier way will be via a specific new web page in the AFRINIC web site, may be linked via a new field or remark in whois, etc.


I’ve clarified that in the policy text; however, it should be noticed that normally, policies don’t go into those details when the staff should decide “how to”.


I don’t understand your mention of “automation” comes from. The policy doesn’t state any automation. I’m not sure if that can be done. The internal systems should probably, to simplify the job, warn the staff when it comes any resource request anniversary – if that doesn’t exist, I guess it can be automated with a script (very simple script), or be part of the MyAfrinic tools, etc.


As said before, the idea is that the “how to” is decided by the staff. We should try to avoid as much as possible micro-management, unless the community has any special interest in doing things in an exact way.


Also, the IA mention about the disclosure of confidential information. The proposal is talking about a summary, not the “literal” information that was submitted with the resource request. As such, this is not covered by confidentiality because it is a summary and also for the same reasons, and to avoid legal issues, the resource holder has the opportunity to, before the publication, justify that the summary provided by the staff can’t be published and provide an alternative text or a justification to delay the publication.


The legal assessment is assuming that I’m making a reference to CI and also there is a mention that has no sense “Accordingly, that issue is sub-judice and thus, premature to be discussed at this stage”, which is not the case. What part of the proposal say that? If you review the RPD archives exactly the same discussion happened already at least 3 times in the last 10 years (from top of my head). Nevertheless, the community is absolutely free to comment in any problem or possible problem in the scope of the CPM, PDP, whois, etc., etc., and there is no way it can be censored, because the community has the sovereignty on all those discussions and the management of the resources. It is not up to any organization, including any courts, to avoid those discussions to freely happen.












El 4/11/21 17:07, "PDWG Chair" <vincent at> escribió:


Dear PDWG,


We are pleased to announce that:-

a.    The impact assessment of the proposal Publication of Information, ID AFPUB-2021-GEN-001-DRAFT01 has been published at


b.    The summary of the concerns/objections on this proposal is as follows:-




We request the authors to consider the pending concerns/objections and that an update of their proposal can be submitted until 10 November 2021 at 23h59.


We encourage the PDWG to discuss the merits of the proposal by keeping this discussion thread using the following guidelines :-

a.    Do you agree with the problem statement and proposal as written?

b.    Have you encountered an issue similar to the problem statement in the proposal?

c.    Do you have any objections to the proposal as written. If yes, please state the sections and document your objections.

d.    Are there any areas in the proposal that are ambiguous? If yes, please provide the changes you would like to propose.



Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa


_______________________________________________ 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