[Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

[Jackson Muthili]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:23 PM, sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com> 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 <dewole at forum.org.ng>
> Date: 10/26/2016 08:57 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>, General Discussions of AFRINIC
> <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at afrinic.net>
> 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
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>