[AfriNIC-rpd] About AFPUB-2010-GEN-001

[sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]

Hi Adiel,

Thanks for the feedback.

At 11:26 29-03-10, Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:
>Let me clarify few points and try to re-focus the discussion
>about this policy proposal:

[snip]

>3) The role of the PDP-MG as a group and suggested by the current
>    PDP is not to discuss nor to alter or make any jugement on
>    policy proposals. Their role is to MODERATE the discussions on
>    the public mailing list, during public face to face meetings
>    and to present policy discussion report to the community and the
>    Bord for ratification (after consensus is reached). So the PDP-MG
>    is not a closed group that discusses policies. They do have a
>    mailing where they discuss matter related to their work (draft
>    report, action to take etc .... The AfriNIC-RPD (Resource Policy
>    Discussion) list is the only electronic and open channel for
>    policy discussions which in its current setup allows anyone to join
>    and contribute to a discussions. The public policy meetings are
>    the twice a year face to face meetings where literally _anyone_
>    can discuss a policy (have they been on the mailing list before
>    or not - a reason why providing a summary of the online discussion
>    is important).

There seems to be a confusion about the PDP-MG in relation to the 
current proposal.  As you mentioned above, they facilitate the 
discussion.  The role is not that different in the current 
proposal.  However, the PDP-MG cannot be compared to the WG as WG 
encompasses all the people, on the mailing list and during the meeting.

>    As a brief history, the current discussion forum was called Policy
>    Working Group in the first PDP (2004). This has changed because of
>    misconception of people about the term "Working Group" as a closed
>    group to "work" on policies. We may want to take that into
>    consideration while discussing this new PDP proposal.

Thanks for explaining that.  I'll elaborate on this as there seems to 
be a misunderstanding about what the proposal attempts to 
describe.  BTW, I do not disagree with what Adiel suggested.

The PDP is the mechanism through which policies are developed in this 
region by the Internet community.  The community is anyone on the 
Internet.  The term is as large as possible.  We need a venue where 
the community can have discussions.  That venue is the mailing list 
and the meetings.  In practice, it is only people that show an 
interest, either by subscribing to the mailing list or coming to the 
meeting that participate in the discussion.  The group, or WG as used 
in the proposal, is a representation of the community.  I don't have 
any strong feelings about what the name should be as my focus is to 
explain the way the process works.  The proposal introduces the group 
in Section 4 and the name is used in Section 5 to provide an overview 
of the PDP.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy