[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up

Mon Apr 9 12:18:18 UTC 2018

Good day,
Please see some comments below.

2018-03-14 20:28 GMT+00:00 Lee Howard <lee.howard at retevia.net>:

> Thank you for bringing this to the list. I am new to this conversation,
> but I did read the proposed policy and the meeting notes you included below.
>
Thanks for joining the discussion to build a strong PDP for  AFRINIC and
also for your inputs. See below

> I am confused about section 3.4 Consensus.
>
> The proposed text says, "Most of the decisions in the working group
> operations and discussions on policy proposals are made through rough
> consensus, unless specified otherwise. "
> I could not find a case that was specifie otherwise. Would there ever be a
> case?
>

-Appeal committee decision making
-cochairs elections  (Working group operations  guidelines document )

>
> I think from 3.4.1 Minor Objections that those are objections where the
> person objecting agrees that the advantages of the proposal outweigh their
> objections.
> I think from 3.4.2 Major objections that they are defined as those where
> the person objecting cannot accept the proposal.
>

Objection description shall help categorize  the objection  (major or
minor).The working group's decision on an objection, may not  be the same
as what objector think.
Minor and major objections are dealt with as specified by the proposal.

>
> But then I'm confused because it said, "Consensus is reached on a proposal
> if the PDWG is able to successfully work through all objections in this
> way. It is not necessary for everyone to agree with the proposal."
>
> If I were PDWG chair, in order to understand consensus, I would have to
> ask each person who spoke at the  microphone at a meeting, or on the
> mailing list, whether they support the proposal, have a minor objection, or
> a major objection. If they described it as a major objection, it would have
> to be listed as such somewhere (an issues list in Git?), and the PDWG or
> authors would have to explicitly address that point and come to consensus
> on whether it could be accommodated or not, and then the PDWG would have to
> reach consensus on whether the accommodation was acceptable.
>
> But at the end of 3.4.3 Reaching consensus, it says "Consensus is achieved
> when everyone consents to the decision of the group." That still sounds
> like one person objecting can block a proposal, which is the opposite of
> "It is not necessary for everyone to agree."
>
> Can someone explain this to me a little more?
>

Your description  of the process if quite correct and you could probably
make a good co-chair :)

 "Consensus is achieved when everyone consents to the decision of the
group."

After the whole working group including objectors have done their best to
accomodate  the objections, weigh the pros vs cons, etc... what the working
group should expect are  statement of style of:

- "In the general interest, and based on the work done and the discussions,
I accept that the working group moves on with the prooosal"
"Still not very happy, but I can live with that"

But  nor the co-chairs, nor the working group can't prevent  someone for
holding  his position. This where is the  "It is not necessary for everyone
to agree." comes in and the cochairs shall make their decision. The
objector can exercise  his rights to appeal.

Are these explanations  satisfactory?  Can you live with text as it is ?
Any proposed text to make it more obvious?

>
> Thank you,
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> On 03/08/2018 02:01 PM, Komi Elitcha wrote:
>
> Dear working group,
> Following Afrinic-27 in Lagos and the policy discussions[1], the authors
> of the policy proposal AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02[2] would like to
> encourage community to submit further comments  or suggestions  they may
> have, while awaiting the next version of the policy proposal.
>
>
> [1] https://afrinic.net/en/component/content/article/198-
> archive-ppm-minutes/2261-afrinic-27-pdwg-meeting-minutes
> [2] https://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/
> policy-proposals/2233-afrinic-policy-development-process-bis
>
> "AFRINIC Policy Development Process Bis" authors,
>
> --
> --KE
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
Thanks.

-- 
--KE
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20180409/e9882c9c/attachment.html>