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

Wed Oct 26 18:56:55 UTC 2016

I do not agree with your opinion Andrew, since Co-Chaires have the
responsibility to lead the process, they automatically have the
responsibility to ensure its completion, and the only way is to determine
the rough consensus.

If I stand to your opinion, how do we determine  the "large"
number of members approval or rejecting the draft of the Policy?

Regards

Arnaud

Le 26 oct. 2016 11:45, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> a
écrit :

> I actually question this stance, and perhaps what I will be saying may be
> controversial, but this is how I see it.
>
>
>
> It is not – and cannot be – the job of the co-chairs to drive a process
> towards consensus.  It is the job of the authors of the policy to strive to
> read the communities wishes and adjust accordingly to gain the consensus
> (providing that they do not have to adjust to the point where they feel the
> proposal is mute, and if they do get to that point and that is the
> requirement to get the policy passed, it is up to the proposers discretion
> to withdraw or not).
>
>
>
> Why do I say that the co-chair’s cannot strive towards consensus:
>
>
>
> To do so implies that the co-chair’s have taken a position on the policy –
> and that they should ever do – it compromises neutrality.  If the community
> by and large rejects a policy proposal because they disagree with the vast
> majority of its contents, it is certainly not the job of the co-chair’s to
> drive towards a consensus and to influence that view point in favor of
> finding consensus for something which should (by the very fact that the
> community has rejected the majority of it) never reach consensus and should
> die as a result.
>
>
>
> The moment that we put it in the hands of the co-chair’s to start driving
> towards consensus, rather than simply gauging it, we are on a slippery
> slope where the neutrality mandate given to the chair’s becomes a moot
> point.  I don’t think we want to be in that situation personally.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 26 October 2016 at 13:23
> *To: *Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>, 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: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP
> review?
>
>
>
> 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?
>
> With Regards.
>
>
>
> *Serge Ilunga*
>
> *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>*
>
> *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:
>
>    1. the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public policy
>    meetings
>    2. the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions
>    3.  issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to face
>    meetings weakening the decision making process.
>    4. 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161026/2351f134/attachment.html>