Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] About the policy BOF
ronald at one2net.co.ug
Thu May 3 14:29:58 UTC 2007
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> has already asked to raise the hands in order to seek if there is
> 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
> because whatever not being correct in those statements but is misleading
> 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
> situation has changed (example today, an IETF alternative usage for a bit
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD