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

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Wed Oct 26 10:33:15 UTC 2016

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:23 PM, sergekbk <sergekbk at> wrote:
> 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?

is this not what he just wrote about?

> With Regards.
> Serge Ilunga
> Cell: +243814443160
> Skype: sergekbk
> R.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.
> Regards,
> 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 group.
> - 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
> frustration
> 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 co-chairs**
> - 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?
> -Omo
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at

More information about the RPD mailing list