Person profile
PersonSecretary General (Packet Clearing House)
The available evidence covers Roles: Secretary General (Packet Clearing House).
Source description Secretary General (Packet Clearing House)
Bill Woodcock is the Secretary General of Packet Clearing House
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-26
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Bill distinguishes ordinary operations from the abnormal circumstances he describes and opposes an absolute prohibition on protective Board intervention. The qualification is integral to his position; no earlier or later comparable statement is supplied.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Bill distinguishes ordinary operations from the abnormal circumstances he describes and opposes an absolute prohibition on protective Board intervention. The qualification is integral to his position; no earlier or later comparable statement is supplied.
Conditions: The claimed threat of misallocation is the author’s argument, not a verified finding in this review. · No general view on every Board intervention or consistency across time can be inferred.
If it's necessary for them to intervene in this allocation request in order to protect AfriNIC and its members against the possible misallocation of a /11 of space, then they're doing their job.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The intention to make a significant revision acknowledges feedback but supplies no revised policy text and no explicit position to compare with another statement. It therefore does not show a contradiction, establish a final endorsement or prove that a later revision was completed.
Policy Proposal 2006-6: Bulk WHOIS agreement expiration clarification
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The intention to make a significant revision acknowledges feedback but supplies no revised policy text and no explicit position to compare with another statement. It therefore does not show a contradiction, establish a final endorsement or prove that a later revision was completed.
Conditions: The phrase about the next couple of weeks is relative to April 21, 2006; it is not a present commitment. · This judgement covers one retained substantive observation and does not characterize all of Woodcock's policy activity.
FYI, I've gotten a lot of really good feedback on this already, and plan to make a significant revision in the next couple of weeks.
