<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EstiloCorreo18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Gaby,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>In 3.4.1., already says that that DPP can be withdrawn at any time, so 3.4.2. don’t need to repeat that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If you mean that the chairs should have the right to withdraw a proposal, I don’t think that's right neither needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If you follow the history of proposal in all the RIRs (not just in AFRINIC), wat happens when a proposal is not going thru, after a number of versions, is that it will be ignored by the community, so even if it is not withdrawn by authors, is not creating any problem. The community can even tell the authors “you should withdraw it”. At the end it gets abandoned.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Following the same history of proposals in a number of years, you will see that some proposals don’t reach consensus for some time, but it often happens that when they become discussed for longer, or even for completely new proposals on the same topic, the community finally reach consensus. Why this happens? Because the situation is different, there is more pressure for a solution, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>One clear example of this is the abuse-c proposal I mention in my previous email. It reached consensus on the 1<sup>st</sup> version in APNIC, but took 2-3 years in LACNIC, etc. Another example, Inter-RIR proposals in all the regions took much more time than any other proposals, and in the specific case of LACNIC, there were 3 *<b>different</b>* proposals, even from different sets of authors for many years, and all the where abandoned. However, a year ago I submitted a new proposal (I was not part of any of the previous ones) and it succeeded on the first meeting (I actually presented 2 proposals, to offer 2 alternatives, the same I did in AFRINIC). Was my proposal better? Most probably not, but it was the continued discussion AND specially the pressure to resolve the problem (so perfect timing) what allowed to reach consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 3.4.3, the concept of last call is developed, in all the RIRs, after the same concept in IETF. If there is any objection (no need to understand if it is minor or major), not addressed by the authors (or other community members) a proposal can’t reach consensus. This can happen at any time during the discussion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If this happens during the last call, because there is a new objection, that was not discovered during the earlier discussion, then if this objection is not addressed by the authors (or the community), clearly the chairs can’t keep declaring consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So yes, a non-addressed objection, even in the last call, means the proposal goes back to discussion which of course requires a new version.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>So, in my opinion, 3.4.3 is following what you mean. Maybe my clarification here resolved you doubts, or there is any editorial detail that we can improve to make it more obvious, but I keep reading that section and understand well the same intent that you expressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 8/9/20 19:45, "Gaby Giner" <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Hello,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Regarding this proposal, I'm afraid I have to disagree with section 3.4.2 for not including the qualifier "<i>dropping the policy completely" </i>in the last sentence<i>. <br></i><br>This is what it should say instead: "For every DPP/version that doesn't reach consensus, the Chairs should clearly state the reasons, in order for the authors to be able to work in an improved version <b>or drop the policy completely."</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>In addition to that, I also mostly disagree with section 3.4.3 because if a major objection is found during the last call, the policy should go back to the discussion phase - just like any other policy that did not reach consensus. I also believe this policy will need to be reworded to have a more comprehensive version and be discussed and presented again.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Sincerely, Gaby.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</body></html>