Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] About the policy BOF

Thu May 3 13:57:45 UTC 2007

Hi all,

I missed yesterday the Policy BOF because the clash with the IPv4 exhaustion
one, so I wanted to raise my inputs here.

My feeling is that there is a need for a formal setup of a chairing
committee. From what I see in other regions that I believe could apply here
will be having 3 co-chairs from the region, if possible coming from
different sectors (ISPs, IX, education).

I will suggest to change the co-chairs every 3 years or so, may be for a
maximum of 2 consecutive terms, and the first time do it in such way that
only one co-chair is replaced each year. At this way, you always have two
co-chairs aware of what is going on.

The co-chairs should be able to follow, together with the staff, the policy
proposals on the PDP and help the authors understanding the process,
editorial work, etc.

If a co-chair becomes co-author of a proposal, he/she should abstain in the
consensus "measurement" when that proposal is voted and he must clearly
state when talking in the list and the meetings that he/she is talking at
that point as one of the authors, not as a co-chair. In general the
co-chairs should also differentiate clearly all their comments when they are
done as participants versus co-chairs (those comments should be typically
restricted to possible PDP issues, legal aspects, etc., but not the merits
of the proposal itself).

I think it is needed to start each policy session with a very short and
concise reminder about the process. I like very much the way this is handled
in ARIN. Thinks like what happened this morning should be avoided. Nobody
has the right to interrupt the process (and even less when the actual chair
has already asked to raise the hands in order to seek if there is consensus
or not): There is a time for discussion and if anyone raise valid/funded
concerns it is ok, but not vague things or wrong statements about objecting
because whatever not being correct in those statements but is misleading the
people in the room. It is a clear distortion of the process and should not
be allowed.

I also believe that the existing mail exploder is good enough and no more
mail exploders are needed.

Last, but not least, if the board, which is the last step in the PDP, has
the feeling that something is not good in a policy (already accepted) or the
situation has changed (example today, an IETF alternative usage for a bit in
a document), the board should have the power to return that policy to the
mailing list for a new turn around.

It should be also possible to discuss and check for consensus on the list
itself, without the need for a face-to-face meeting (for example a topic
that have no objections in the list). The co-chairs should have the right,
if the discussion is not clear, to delay the decision up to the following

Hoping that this is helpful !


The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the RPD mailing list