Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

sergekbk sergekbk at
Wed Oct 26 10:23:13 UTC 2016

Hello Dewole, 

 Don’t you think that  it is the role of the co-chairs to tavoid  the +1 and -1 and drive the process  to consensus?

With Regards.
Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at> Date: 10/26/2016  08:57  (GMT+01:00) To: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at>, General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." <rpd at> Subject: Re: [rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review? 

    Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others).
    Each of the draft policy proposals at
      is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from
      the authors' viewpoint(s).
    To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the
      last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing
      list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the
      resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest
      of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance
      of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences.
    At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e.
      all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in
      person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide
      feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can
      choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved
      proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to.
    I recommend that as a community, we should: 

      seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable 

      rather than 

      seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may
      be) on everyone else. 

    ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward
    solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s
    and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we
    (supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at
    heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this
    manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding
    emails are actually non-issues.



    Dewole Ajao.

    PDWG co-Chair


    On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote:

        Dear Community,
        I am not suggesting there is a problem with
          the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present,
          but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a
          policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the
          PDP and its requirements.
        The current PDP (
          adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor.
        It lists fixing the following issues amongst
          others as incentive:
          the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public
            policy meetings

          the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions

           issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to
            face meetings weakening the decision making process.  

          consensus building process leading to scenario where
            opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the
            ones expressed on mailing list
        While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1
          and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4.
        The current PDP introduced the PDWG with
          co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions” of the
        - It did not describe what these
          administrative functions were.  
        - It did not prescribe criteria for
          co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. 
        - It also did not describe the process for
          determining “rough consensus”.  
        As a result, we have seen: 
        - co-chairs candidates who could be more
          familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management.  
        - insufficient moderation of policy proposal
          discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings
          leading to endless repetitive discussions
        - inability of co-chairs to determine
          consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people
          persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with
          insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and
        The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a
          perfect illustration.  Another easy example is that since
          AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals
          which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions
          as per meeting minutes (
          and no action from the working group co-chairs. 
        **Some questions for the community and
        - How do we fix issues #3 and #4?    
        - Will the proposals returned to the list be
          presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion
          points be and for which expected outcomes?


RPD mailing list
RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list