Hi Omo

You raise very pertinent issues.  I might want to add that we should also look 
into the capabilities of the candidates.  Historically we tend to vote for any 
willing candidate but as you well note bellow ability to objectively perform 
the role and manage the process is also needed.

Regards



On 10/25/16, 10:05 AM, "Omo Oaiya" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Community,

I am not suggesting there is a problem with the PDP per se or criticising the 
co-chairs, past or present, but recent discussions on accountability and 
co-authoring a policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the 
PDP and its requirements.

The current PDP 
(http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005)
 adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor.

It lists fixing the following issues amongst others as incentive:

the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy meetings

the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions

 issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face meetings weakening 
the decision making process.  

consensus building process leading to scenario where opinions expressed at face 
to face have more weight that the ones expressed on mailing list
While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1 and #2, it has not addressed #3 
and #4

The current PDP introduced the PDWG with co-chairs to perform the 
"administrative functions” of the group.  

- It did not describe what these administrative functions were.  

- It did not prescribe criteria for co-chairs selection or an election 
mechanism. 

- It also did not describe the process for determining “rough consensus”.  

As a result, we have seen: 

- co-chairs candidates who could be more familiar with PDP and Internet Number 
Resource management.  

- insufficient moderation of policy proposal discussions on the mailing list 
and at face to face meetings leading to endless repetitive discussions

- inability of co-chairs to determine consensus encouraging abuse of the 
process with some people persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress 
with insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and frustration

The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a perfect illustration.  Another easy 
example is that since AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals 
which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions as per meeting 
minutes 
(http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes)
 and no action from the working group co-chairs. 

**Some questions for the community and co-chairs**

- How do we fix issues #3 and #4?    

- Will the proposals returned to the list be presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, 
what will be the discussion points be and for which expected outcomes?

-Omo

_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list 
[email protected] 
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 

_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Reply via email to