On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:23 PM, sergekbk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Dewole, > > Don’t you think that it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid the +1 and > -1 and drive the process to consensus?
is this not what he just wrote about? > > With Regards. > > Serge Ilunga > Cell: +243814443160 > Skype: sergekbk > R.D.Congo > -------- Original message -------- > From: Dewole Ajao <[email protected]> > Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00) > To: Omo Oaiya <[email protected]>, General Discussions of AFRINIC > <[email protected]> > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? > > Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others). > > Each of the draft policy proposals at > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals is a > solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from the authors' > viewpoint(s). > > To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the last > public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing list by the > co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the resulting discourse is > however dependent on the authors, the rest of the PDWG, and willingness to > engage on the (granular) substance of the proposals rather than personal or > ideological differences. > > At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e. all who > CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in person at the public > meetings) has the opportunity to provide feedback on the policy proposals. > Authors of policy proposals can choose to incorporate the feedback received > to produce an improved proposal that the majority of the community is (more) > amenable to. > > I recommend that as a community, we should: > seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable > rather than > seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may be) on > everyone else. > > ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward solutions > that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s and -1s on > completely divergent points of view. Since we (supposedly) all have the best > interests of the AFRINIC community at heart, we should seek to unite rather > than divide. Operating in this manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as > listed in the preceding emails are actually non-issues. > > Regards, > Dewole Ajao. > PDWG co-Chair > > On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
