<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Dec 3, 2018, at 11:54 PM, Gregoire Ehoumi via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin-bottom:45px">
<div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hi,</span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is no provision in the curent PDP which mandates, updates/revisions to a proposal before it got presented at a PPM. The agenda was published and as expected, no one objected...here we see another incentive for PDP-BIS which defines a clear lifecycle of proposal?</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break"></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break"></span></div></div></div></blockquote>Does this mean there will be no time that a proposal will become stale? I thought the purpose of updates/revisions is to get the document to be better and accommodating. Ignoring community members input to proposals as being insinuated here is against the principle of the PDP.</div><div><br></div><div>My experience in the University has shown that a policy that is drafted and possibly implemented (no matter how good) usually has issues at implementation and cannot achieve its objectives. For the reason that the University community was not carried along in fine tuning the policy. Such documents are usually referred to as rules and regulations not policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Therefore given credence to a stale document is not the best. The Review Policy is suffering from rejection for the path the authors have taken in ignoring and refusing to accommodate the views of other members of the community. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I find it curious that a policy proposal which aims to improve resource usage, provide better accountability within an RIR ecosystem raises so much controversy. </span></div></div></div></blockquote>If the policy is truly what it claims to be, then why is their resistance to criticisms of the policy.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Members sign RSA which bind them to such review, but when it comes to defining a community consensus approach to the review, it becomes stormy</span></div></div></div></blockquote>I am personally comfortable with the RSA, and oppose to any other policy that clearly repeats the RSA. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break"></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br class="kix-line-break"></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Are we afraid of enforcement of new policy and not of the RSA?</span><br></div></div></div></blockquote>Why should one fear a document (RSA) s/he signs at the commencement of a relationship. The "new policy" - Review Policy is just no useful.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="margin-bottom:45px"><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Arial; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">--Gregoire</span></div></div><div style="font-size: 10pt;"><div id="LGEmailHeader" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">------ Original message------</div><div dir="auto"><b>From: </b>Ernest Byaruhanga<ernest@afrinic.net></ernest@afrinic.net></div><div dir="auto"><b>Date: </b>Mon, Dec 3, 2018 6:02 AM</div><div dir="auto"><b>To: </b>Nishal Goburdhan;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Cc: </b>rpd;</div><div dir="auto"><b>Subject:</b>Re: [rpd] Opposing the last call made on the review policy</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><pre>Nishal,
> have there been any updates to this policy since the previous meeting.
No.
Version 6 was received on 10 April 2018, and no newer version thereafter.
More info:
<a href="https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details">https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2016-gen-001-d6#details</a>
Ernest.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">
RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre></div>
</div>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>