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

[rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy Development Process Bis

Fri May 17 18:06:52 UTC 2019

Hi all,

I've sent my raw notes about this policy proposal on 29th November 2018.

I've looked around for email exchanged on this, and just to be safe, re-read the policy proposal and tried to re-assess my comments, so in some cases I've done some editorial changes, but basically everything remains the same.

My main point is still that even if this "transplantation" of the RIPE process (which again, in my opinion is one of the best PDPs), to AFRINIC, is increasing the complexity, instead of facilitating the process which is one of the reasons for the lack of participation, and adding some mistakes, with break it.

Here is what I believe is still not resolved:

1) Definition of rough consensus is incomplete and erroneous. The participants may be newcomers, they need to have a place to read a complete description as part of the PDP.

2) The distinction among minor and major objections doesn’t make sense if you understand correctly the definition of rough consensus. This adds unnecessary complexity to the process.

3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not a way to determine consensus from the list.

4) Contradictory, consensus is not unanimity, even if not everyone consents to the decision of the group, consensus may be declared.

5) Let the chairs to decide. Providing so much details to them in the PDP means they can’t “move” on their own. Community elected them, community need to trust them. If they make a mistake in a decision, there is a last call and there is an appeal process.

6) Phases stated are complex and unnecessary. Looks like trying to copy the RIPE PDP but with broken things. Will difficult the community participation.

7) The PDP can’t avoid having competing proposals, it is good for the process and the community to investigate several choices. It is a way for an author or a group of them to block the community progress. If I've an idea and send a proposal and the community don't like it but I'm not improving the text along the discussions, a possible way out is an alternative proposal.

8) The WG should not decide against a policy proposal if is in scope of the PDP (so adoption phase doesn’t apply).

9) End of discussion phase brings subjective documentation of the process, biasing the community.

10) Impact analysis should include “more”, but just objective inputs, and not bias the community.

11) What happens if the timing with the review phase and the next meeting doesn’t match?

12) In the Concluding phase, it is not clear why a proposal should go back to either the discussion or the review phase.

13) Implementation waiver from who? The implementation timing is up to the staff and should be informed in the impact analysis.

14) In the RIPE PDP we made last September a change, as there was a mistake in the process, following a policy proposal that I’ve authored, regarding the non-consensus after the review phase. I think you missed that point …

15) There is no point in asking for 3 individuals for an appeal. If a single community member wants to appeal a PDP decision and can't, I'm convinced he has the right to go to courts, because it is not inclusive.


IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list