Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Comments about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
dogwallah at gmail.com
Fri Dec 24 11:20:23 UTC 2010
I agree with frank, pdp-wg chairs should not have "power" to make
decisions, but instead should facilitate and call consensus according
to established criteria. This is the reason i was opposed to a pdp-mg,
but accept that a pdp-wg is a more lightweight "filter" between the
Community and Board. our next step seems to be to establish criteria
for the pdp-wg members to use to determine consensus. Happy holidays,
McTim...who is too busy to write more, as he is chasing monkeys away
from his lunch on the beach
On 12/24/10, Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:
> somehow I get the impression we should have less power for the chairs -
> no ability for individuals to stall policy development.
> And more power to the people...! i mean: the mailing list.
> Chairs should facilitate, but not decide, i believe.
> .. of course one can imagine a mailing list being "lame" and not going
> forward, then chairs can & should "invigorate" discussion towards
> getting a "conclusion" ....
> yes. thinking aloud.
> (not replying to anyone here, just observing)
> On 12/24/2010 12:28 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
>> Yes - but if the Chairs can not agree with each other (personality
>> clashes excluded) - how ever can one say that there is Consensus?
>> Technically - there should be very little opportunity for objectivity -
>> so even two chairs should agree. The Chair should simply be a reflection
>> of what the people agree to (consensus or not) - with the current
>> "rules" (PDP Policy) being the guide towards making decisions.
>> My thoughts anyway.
>> You are correct about the reasons to have two chairs though -
>> Maybe if both Chairs are present - your idea of "power sharing" makes
>> sense... but it should probably just be the Chair who's term is first to
>> run out that is the Primary Chair. I'm assuming here that each Chair has
>> a two year term - and they overlap by one year - so the primary Chair
>> should be the person who has the shortest term left - technically the
>> Chair with the most experience.
>> If one one Chair is present at a meeting - that person is the defacto
>> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 00:41 -0800, Walubengo J wrote:
>>> my earlier undestanding behind the need to have 2chairs for the PDP
>>> was that they could act as "alternate" to avoid the occurence of "no
>>> chair" present as it happened in Afrinic-11 in Senegal.
>>> However, during the last policy meeting in SA (Afrinic-13), it occured
>>> to me that BOTH Chairs are actually expected to be present and
>>> managing the Policy discussion - thus creating a real potential for
>>> deadlocks (as Dr. Paulos describes here).
>>> One quick way to resolve the potential for deadlocks while
>>> simultaneously eliminating the potential for "absent chair" is to
>>> designate a "lead" Chair for each Policy meeting on a rotational
>>> basis. Since we have 2 policy meetings per year, and 2 chairs, the
>>> lead chair in a previous policy meeting becomes the secondary chair in
>>> the subsequent meeting and both act as Backup for each other i.e. in
>>> the event a lead chair cant make it for the meeting the secondary
>>> chair simply takes over. Also this means that the lead chair for that
>>> period/session has the final say - in the event of conflict or need to
>>> break a tie (within the Chairmanship).
>>> On Thu, 12/23/10, Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:
>>> From: Dr Paulos Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>
>>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Comments about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
>>> To: "Nii Narku Quaynor" <quaynor at ghana.com>, rpd at afrinic.net
>>> Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 5:07 PM
>>> Experience on the AfriNIC PDP-MG shows that conflict among
>>> chairs of the PDP process has
>>> occurred often in the last three years, making this a very
>>> meaningful and pertinent
>>> This has been the case at face to face public policy meetings
>>> as well as during PDP-MG
>>> internal meetings. It has been observed before that
>>> AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 has a major
>>> problem in that it has two co-chairs (even number) which will
>>> result in many hanging
>>> decisions very often.
>>> One way to the resolve this is to revise AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 so
>>> that number of co-chairs
>>> should have been odd.
>>> When analysing such conflicts, it will be necessary to include
>>> consideration of conflicts
>>> of interest in policy development such as the case where one
>>> of the PDP co-chairs is an
>>> author of a policy under consideration as it unfortunately
>>> happened in the development of
>>> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
>>> NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
>>> On 15 Dec 2010 at 12:42, Nii Narku Quaynor wrote:
>>> > On Dec 15, 2010, at 2:12 AM, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
>>> > > AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 does not discuss about the question of
>>> conflict between the two
>>> > > Chairs. I suggest that the Chairs ask the community for
>>> comments to get a better
>>> > > perspective of the problem. The Chairs bear the
>>> responsibility to make the process
>>> > > work and to ensure that their decisions have the consensus
>>> of the community.
>>> > normally, Chairs are looking for consensus so conflict would
>>> not be so meaningful
>>> > Nii_______________________________________________
>>> > rpd mailing list
>>> > rpd at afrinic.net
>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
Sent from my mobile device
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
More information about the RPD