[rpd] Accountability assessment - PDP review?

[abel ELITCHA]

Hello Alain, Seun, @all,
My comments inline.

*Alain Aina*: It is obvious that we do have issues here….

Everyone remember the co-chairs elections on the fly we had in Pointe-Noire
and Gaborone?  After these dramatic scenarios we heard proposals in the
rooms for :

- having 3 co-chairs



*=====me*

It makes sense to me, to have a third co-chair indeed, that can summarize
the differents views during PDP discussions on mailing list and avoid
views/ideas/objections repetition. While the two other co-chairs will be
focussed onto dismissing flagrant insults and intimidations as well as to
propose arrangement on similar/opposed views.

*====*

-electing interim co-chair and give time to elect co-chair following normal
process when last minutes resignation occurred as during these 2 meetings.

-etc…



*=====me*

Maybe there is a need to provide more incentives towards the co-chair role
and also a support material/document to help introduce a new
[interim]co-chair.

*====*

It has also be brought up the issue of having the two chairs (according to
the PDP) and two co-chairs( according to the common language) disagreeing
on the way forward and the idea of having either :

-  3 chairs or co-chairs

- One chair and co-chair(s). In case of tie or conflict, chair voice
prevails.

*=====me*

+1 for one chair and 2 deputy chairs. The chair role must be focused on
ultimate decision taking. He should not intervene too much, and act after
consultations with deputies to move things forward. The Chair must be well
aware of PDP process and be well respected [in terms of knowledge of PDP
and integrity] member of the community. He need to take in consideration
AFRINIC’s history.

*====*







*Seun Ojedeji*: 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.

*=====me*

+1, I suggest we do remove the proposer(s) when posting a new policy on PDP
mailing list. We shall avoid indeed, personal opinion on people and
unjustified (or person concerned) agreements/disagreements (+1s/-1s) on
proposal while encouraging community global interest.

*====*

 Thank you!


--Abel

2016-10-28 5:01 GMT+00:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 28 Oct 2016 02:24, <sm+afrinic 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
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

--Komi A. Elitcha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161031/a0a23842/attachment.html>