[rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

[ALAIN AINA]

Hi,

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> One thing is certain, and that is the fact that there is no absolutely correct way to always gauge consensus and the approaches can vary by proposals. While some may require show of hands in other to inform the Co-Chairs, others may require show of hands in other to confirm what the Co-Chairs have in mind while others may indeed not require show of hands at all. We practice either of the 3 within our region.
> 
> Other RIR do actual vote count, we don't do that at AFRINIC but that also doesn't imply it isn't checking consensus. In the long run, whether all the substantial issues on a particular policy has been addressed is what needs to be focused upon.
> 
> I hope the community will work together as the Co-Chairs help lead the PDP in finding a way forward for various proposals. I don't think we have attain much of that as a community; we need to keep focus on actual proposal and not on the proposer and perhaps if that doesn't work then we may consider approaches that removes the proposer from the flowchart of PDP as much as possible. Overall, our current PDP is great, our community can be better and that is where I have more concern on.
> 
> 

The PDP has demonstrated implementation issues and limit. Both PDP and  the community will greatly benefit from strong chairs leadership with clear Working Group procedures. 
“Rough Consensus” requires following  procedures, addressing issues and making informed decisions. The success depends on how we manage these steps and the ability of the chairs to exercise their powers and responsibilities

—Alain

> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> 
> 
> On 28 Oct 2016 02:24, <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com <mailto:sm%2Bafrinic at elandsys.com>> wrote:
> Hi Owen,
> At 16:50 27-10-2016, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Well… It is difficult to measure consensus in any way that doesn't at least to some extent look like voting. The main difference between measuring consensus and voting really comes in what you do with the numbers at the end.
> Consensus being a lack of sustained opposition and rough consensus being a situation where the opposition has been clearly heard and addressed to the extent practical such that any remaining opposition is a clear minority that cannot be reasonably accommodated, any mechanism to establish whether or not there is support amongst those present is likely to resemble some form of voting, polling, etc.
> 
> It is better not to measure consensus (or vote) as it is possible to fill the room with people who will vote for my draft policy.  The opinion(s) of a minority of people cannot be ignored if the decision is to be taken by consensus.
> 
> Consensus in, for example, ICANN has a different interpretation when compared to the way it is done in the IETF.  It is also different in RIR venues.  A closer look at the different working groups within the IETF would show that there are also differences there.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161029/4f814577/attachment-0001.html>