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

[sm+afrinic at elandsys.com]

At 11:26 29-03-10, Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:
>>Section 5.4
>>---
>>"5.4 Approval
>>
>>The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the
>>AfriNIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of
>>the Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include
>>a report of the discussions during the Public Policy Meeting and the
>>Last
>>Call. The AfriNIC Board of Directors may not disapprove a draft
>>policy,
>>but if it has concerns about a draft policy, it may refer it back to
>>the
>>Policy Development Working Group, together with an explanation, for
>>further
>>work."
>>--
>
>The board should not have a say on a policy (or reject a policy) that
>has
>consensus from the community. The role of the Board is and should
>continue
>to be to ensure that the PD process is followed. Board members can
>discuss
>the substance of a policy in their personal capacity during the open
>discussion period but not at the board level after the consensus is
>reached
>on the mailing list, during face to face meeting and the last call
>period.
>If collectively the board has a structural concern about a policy, or
>see a
>policy as a risk for the organisation it raise it as a formal position
>paper
>or as part the policy impact Analysis provide by the staff. This should
>however is recommended to be raised during the debate and not after.

That's a good point.  It allows issues to be addressed earlier in the process.

>So it is recommended that this Section 5.4 of the policy proposal be
>reviewed
>by the author.

I'll propose some new text to that effect.

>>Section 6
>>--
>>Conflict Resolution
>>
>>A person who disagrees with the actions taken by Chair(s)shall
>>discuss the
>>matter with the Working Group Chair(s) or with the Working Group. If
>>the
>>disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an
>>appeal
>>with the AfriNIC Board of Directors. The appeal must be submitted
>>within two
>>weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The AfriNIC Board of
>>Directors
>>shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the Working
>>Group. The
>>AfriNIC Board of Directors may direct that the Chair(s) decision be
>>annulled
>>if the Policy Development Process has not been followed.
>>
>>Anyone who has attended at least two of the last ten AfriNIC
>>meetings may
>>request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon
>>written request
>>with justification to the AfriNIC Board of Directors. The Board
>>shall appoint
>>a Recall Committee comprising five persons from the Working Group,
>>excluding
>>the person requesting the recall and the Working Group Chairs, using
>>a random
>>selection process. The Recall Committee shall investigate the
>>circumstances of
>>the justification for the recall and determine the outcome.
>>----
>
>The board has no issue with this but suggests that the author be more
>precise
>about what the complain could reasonably be. We need to avoid people
>to find
>any reason to complain for when their proposal or proposal they are
>supporting
>is rejected! We have to limit this exclusively to complain about the
>process
>itself.

The proposal has "if the Policy Development Process has not been 
followed" in Section 6.  Complaints that are not about the process 
itself can be rejected.

>The recall committee seems a good thing for fairness but the Board
>feel that
>with the limited active participants to the afrinic-rpd list there is a
>potential risk to end up with the same people for every recall
>committee.

Yes, that's a problem.

>It also suggested to look into the possibility for AfriNIC to have a
>permanent
>Appeal Committee appointed by the board to deal with this as well all
>the
>provision for appeal that is being made for in the new AfriNIC RSA.

That sounds fine.

>According to the legal Opinion, this is inline with the regulations
>and Acts under which AfriNIc operates in Mauritius.

Thank you.

>>(ii) Provide an analysis of the financial impact if this proposal
>>     is adopted as a policy by AfriNIC.
>
>a) The Chair and co-Chair role being voluntary roles, we see no direct
>    financial impact assuming that electronic means will their main
>    working tool.
>
>b) The Board however feel that with the implementation of this policy
>    there may be a need for further resources and attention to be
>    dedicated to the policy development process by the AfriNIC staff.
>
>>(iii) Assess whether it is administratively and technically
>>     feasible for AfriNIC to implement this proposal.
>
>Appart from point b) above, there is no further comment from the board.

Thank you.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy