Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Comments about AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
Dr Paulos Nyirenda
paulos at sdnp.org.mw
Tue Jan 4 12:44:29 UTC 2011
It seems clear from this discussion then that:
1. PDP-WG co-chairs do have to make important decisions in AFPUB-2010-GEN-005,
2. AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 does not create a "lead chair"
3. Conflicts among co-chairs are a real potential threat in AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 and in
policy development in the AfriNIC region.
4. There is need to revise AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 to alleviate such conflicts.
5. Possible revision areas include creation of an odd number of co-chairs or creation of
a lead chair in AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
On 24 Dec 2010 at 3:23, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> Hi Walu,
> At 00:41 24-12-10, 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.
> If we have one Chair and the person is not present at the meeting,
> it's a problem. Having two Chairs reduces the likelihood of that
> happening. According the PDP used for AfriNIC-11, there were three
> members. The three members were absent. This has been addressed by
> leaving it to the PDWG to select a Chair for the meeting.
> The selection of the Chairs is staggered to allow for continuity. As
> one of the Chairs is around for a year, he or she has followed the
> discussions about the proposals and can provide input to the new Chair.
> There isn't an alternate; the Chairs have equal standing. That is
> why they are called co-Chairs. It is good if the Chair with less
> experience gets hands-on experience of the process. The other Chair
> can help out if the need arises.
> >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).
> Both Chairs do not have to be present. One of the Chairs is enough
> to manage the policy discussions. If one of the Chairs is the author
> of a proposal under discussion, the other Chair can take over.
> Several proposals were discussed at the AfriNIC-13 Public Policy
> Meeting. Alan and I had a quick discussion during the ten minutes
> break about how to proceed. We decided on which proposal each of us
> would handle. It was more about coordination. You may have noticed
> that both Alan and I commented as individuals during the meeting. We
> spoke from the floor so that it was clear that we were not speaking
> as Chairs then. As our views are public, the community can assess
> whether we were biased when we had to take a decision.
> If I had any strong concerns about a proposal, I would have left it
> to Alan to take the decision. It is up to the community to decide
> whether either of the Chairs acted fairly. If the community has an
> concerns about that, they can take action against the Chair.
> It wasn't easy to make a determination of consensus on some of the
> proposals. It is sometimes a quick decision while we have to
> identify and clarify the points of agreement and disagreement. In
> simple terms, it's not a vote about a proposal.
> Alan and I did not take a vote to come to a decision. It was more
> like "what do you think?" or "I think that everybody got to voice out
> their views and we can make a determination on this one". As far as
> I recall, we did not disagree with each other.
> >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).
> Having a lead chair to have a final say or using an odd number to
> break a tie is only useful when decisions are taken through a
> vote. If two-thirds of the people in a group support a proposal and
> one third of them object, it is difficult to say that there is
> consensus. If there isn't consensus between the Chairs, is it likely
> that there is consensus in the group?
> My view is that the Chair is there to fulfill an administrative
> function and not about who gets to be "lead" Chair. I prefer if it
> is the community that has the final say. If you walk out of a
> meeting with a sense that the same decision would have been reached
> if any other person in the group was Chair, it means that the Chair
> took the right decision.
> S. Moonesamy
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD