<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.EstiloCorreo19
{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 style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Ibeanusi,<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'>The first think to notice is that most of the changes in this version have been made to avoid objections based on the IA of the previous version as there were no inputs on the policy proposal from the community.<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'>There is only 1 additional point that I’ve not noticed before regarding clarifications on section 3.6 (Varying the process).<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'>And yes, it may look longer, but this is needed when you want to avoid interpretation differences among different people. Either we fight because the text is not clear when a problem comes to the table or we make our text a bit clearer even if they mean longer text.<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'>The 1 additional week on the last call is not for the last call itself, is for ensuring that the chairs have time, when that time finish to talk among them and confirm if the consensus is sustained or not. This has been proven as very useful since we have been using that for several years in LACNIC after a similar proposal that I made there.<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'>You must understand that chairs are voluntary. They may have vacations or be traveling or too busy and asking them to take the decision right on the next minute after the last call it is a no sense. In fact, if you see the timing from previous last calls, it never happens in the next minute, or even next day. So, fixing a 1-week time seems very reasonable.<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'>The timing for the agenda is consistent with the *<b>already existing timing</b>* of possible proposal modifications (new versions) up to 1 week before the meeting. It doesn’t change at all the time the community has to discuss about any policy proposal. So I’m not sure to follow your point here. Also, this is consistent with other RIRs experience.<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'>Regarding section 3.4.5., this is consistent with what we have in other RIRs but also, with what we have in AFRINIC bylaws 11.4 (which is a encroachment to the community). The bylaws aren’t a community matter, but the PDP is *<b>only</b>* a community matter, and is only the community the one that can empower the board to take part on that. Making it explicit, we have a more coherent perspective, and even more we clearly define details that are needed and the bylaws don’t have it correctly. For example, the bylaws (11.5) say that in that case the board shall ask for the community endorsment, and we know that the *<b>only</b>* way the communbity can endorse a policy is by consensus. So the bylaws are incomplete not recognizing that. We can fix it in the bylaws (which is a membership matter) or in the PDP, or even better, we shall make sure that both are coherent.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>If you read 3.4.5, and the bylaws, you will, consequently, understand that the proposal is not creating additional work either for board or community, just re-stating that endorsement (term used in bylaws) is equal to reaching consensus (or not) as defined in the PDP. So again, we are just correcting inconsistencies and being cleare to avoid intepretation issues when they come.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><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 14/11/21 9:43, "Ibeanusi Elvis" <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com">ibeanusielvis@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><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Dear all; <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 the the rpd: New Version of Policy Proposal - Update of PDP (Draft-2) - AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02, I want to point out somethings of importance. First, in general the newly proposed version I feel is a longer version of the current version. There is no major modification made here. They are both the same thing just that one is more written out making the other look like a short summary but they both have the same meaning. Similarly, what’s the essence of the additionally 1 week at the end of the last call, in retrospect it means that the length of the last call is 3weeks instead of 2weeks in which every of the pure editorial comments, and other modifications are made. There is no need for the extra 1 week. <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'>Likewise, 3.4.2 Public Policy Meeting and Consensus Determination; the reduction of the announcement of the meeting agenda on the RPD List from 2 weeks to 1 week makes no sense cause it does not give the RPD enough time for discussion and less time to get a better grasp of the meeting’s agenda. In the current version, it states that “no change can be made to the draft policy within one week of the meeting…” but good enough, there is two weeks. The proposed version states the same thing but it only gives a one week provision. <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'>On the other hand, I personally do not thinking there is a necessity for the 3.4.5 Additional Functions of the AFRINIC Board of Directors. Cause it would be an additional work to both the community and the Board plus giving the board the opportunity to define or make temporary policy change which would last till next PPM might create an issue from it was created to the next PPM.<o:p></o:p></p></div></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'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Elvis <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'>On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 22:11 PDWG Chair <<a href="mailto:vincent@ngundi.me.ke">vincent@ngundi.me.ke</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>Hello PDWG Members,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>We have received a new version of policy proposal - Update of PDP (Draft-2) - AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02 from author Jordi Palet Martinez. The proposal contents are published at:</span><span style='color:black'><a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d1" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white;text-decoration:none'> </span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt;text-align:justify'><span style='color:black'><a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d2" target="_blank"><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#1155CC;background:white'>https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2021-gen-002-d2</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and provide your feedback.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>Regards,</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:35.4pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black;background:white'>AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></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>