> On Nov 12, 2016, at 02:52, Christian Bope <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2016 6:24 p.m., "Alan Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. >
I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording is flawed. How about: Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP or by the board under this process. In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. ---- Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP? Owen
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
