> On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties >> is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. >> >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the >> community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a >> policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here’s suggested text: >> >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 >> shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next >> public policy meeting. >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, >> the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its >> non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to >> such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > How about this: > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 > shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public > policy meeting. > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community > to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as > directed by the Board. > > Would that work?
Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
