Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] About the policy BOF
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu May 3 14:35:38 UTC 2007
I'm not saying we shouldn't have face-to-face meetings.
What I'm saying is if a policy clearly reach consensus in the list, it may
be the case that consensus can be declared already.
De: Ronald Nsubuga <ronald at one2net.co.ug>
Responder a: <napstertash at gmail.com>
Fecha: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:29:58 +0100
Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List
<rpd at afrinic.net>
Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] About the policy BOF
On 5/3/07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
> 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
I still think there is need for a face-to-face meeting because people might
get a clear understanding of policy after interacting with the other members
during the face-to-face meeting.
> Hoping that this is helpful !
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> 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.
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
- -- http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
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