[rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal

Thu May 23 11:22:53 UTC 2019

Dear Dewole,

The current PDP as we read it in CPM at section 3.3[1] says :

 ‘The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions.

Cochairs role and responsibilities  are listed as follow [2]:

######
    • Determining whether there is consensus during open policy discussions.
    • Publishing minutes of the proceedings of public policy meetings.
    • Initiation and termination of final review of proposals (Last Call).
    • Sending a report on the outcomes of policy discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of Directors.
#####

THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SO FAR.

If PDP-BIS is adopted, cochairs role and responsibilities will be as follow:[3]

 ####

2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting

    2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting

• Introduce a policy proposal into the adoption phase
• Announce policy proposals to the policy discussion mailing list
• Discourages any behaviour that jeopardizes open participation to policy discussions, especially for newcomers.
• Monitors and moderate discussions held on AFRINIC policy discussion mailing list ( rpd at afrinic.net)
• Announces the call for presentation of policy proposals for Public Policy Meetings on the policy discussion mailing list,
• Read submitted proposals
• Remain subscribed to AFRINIC RPD and member-discuss lists during his term.
• At the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting, read initiators' slides to familiarize themselves with the details and ensure it matches proposal text. In case of any difference, submission of an updated version of the proposal on rpd list to notify the working group is required, even if these changes will not be considered.
• Create agenda presentation slides for the meeting with the AFRINIC staff.
• Guide the consensus gauging process; announces the current phase of a policy proposal.
• Read AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting minutes and makes corrections as necessary
• Present the policy discussion working group report to the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.

2.1.2 After a Public Policy Meeting

• Send report of Public Policy Meeting to the community and policy discussion mailing lists including policy proposal discussion outcomes and open action items.
• Monitor and moderate discussion during the concluding phase for comments period.
• Summarize discussions and, following the end of the call for comments, post the decision regarding whether the proposal has reached rough consensus or not.

2.1.3 During a Public Policy Meeting

• Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the discussions
• Determine whether rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting
• Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting
• Present the policy discussion working group report to the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.

######

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WITH PPD-BIS, CHAIRS WILL HAVE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE AND THE WHOLE PROCESS WILL DRASTICALLY IMPROVED. ONLINE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE MONITORED, MODERATED AND SUMMARISED. ISSUES LIST WILL BE MANAGED AND PROGRESS TRACKED.
BIG CHANGES COMPARED TO THE CURRENT UNCONTROLLED EMAILS FLOW WHICH CONFUSE PEOPLE, LEAVE THE DISCUSSIONS AMONG A SMALL GROUP AND HENCE LIMIT PARTICIPATION.

Hope this answers your questions 

[1] https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP
[2] https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#guide
[3] Chairs roles and responsibilities in a separate document named ‘pdwg guidelines and procedures’. Unfortunately the link pointing to this document attached to the proposal, is broken : see section 3.3 at https://afrinic.net/fr/policy/2017-gen-002-d4#proposal

> Le 22 mai 2019 à 13:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> a écrit :
> 
> Hi Komi, all,
> 
> 
> El 22/5/19 10:30, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
>    Hi Jordi,
> 
>>    On 20/05/2019 10:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sorry, for some reason this email was not in the right folder, so didn't saw it before. Responding now, below in-line.
>    Hmm. ..you missed this important exchange... very strange, but it 
>    happens....
> 
> Well I agree, it happens, I recall when before the Dakar meeting some proposal authors didn't responded to previous emails (and they never did). See below regarding this, because it is expected that authors respond, it MUST NOT BE expected that community do.
> 
>    This is another motivation  to update  the PDP to better organize the 
>    discussions and  our work on  proposals with active moderation of the 
>    cochairs...
> 
> I don't agree, but may be if there is a way we need to understand what it means "active moderation". I think the bigger problem with have in the Internet communities (even in IETF for example), is that people don't have time, or just don't pay attention, or don't want to pay attention. But if you are in that side of the playground, then you need to realize that you can't complain when rules (in our case policies), get adopted.
> 
>    Many got lost and confused easily in the unmoderated  flow of mails.
> 
> Big disagreement here. A PDP, by definition is an open and NOT MODERATED PROCESS AT ALL. It must be dynamic, and if some people don't participate, is not good, but that should not preclude the moderation of those that actually participate.
> 
>> 
>> El 18/2/19 12:39, "Komi Elitcha" <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>>     Dear co-chairs,
>> 
>>       As you know, PDP update discussions  at Afrinic-29  were rich and  led
>>     to the abandonment of the competing  proposal.
>> 
>> This is incorrect. I voluntarily decided to withdraw my proposal, under the expectation that you will consider the community inputs (including those from me), to improve your proposal.
>    We heard you and made calls to the community to comment. I hope your 
>    last search in the archives  shows you the current situation.
> 
> Please, realize that if I send an email to a given policy authors in November, it should not be needed that I resend the email 6 months after to get responses. If you volunteer to author a proposal, you commit to advance it according to the community discussion and respond timely to emails. This is not necessarily true for community participants, they can decide NOT to respond to authors emails.
> 
>> 
>>     PDP-BIS authors will not support  a complete rewrite  of the proposal
>>     under discussion, especially from author of the withdrawn proposal, who
>>     changed  his  mind after supporting the proposal at Afrinic 28
>> 
>> You're saying it all. You don't want to cooperate with the community,
>    Since the inception of the proposal and as you can see in the archives 
>    and through the revision  history, community consensual inputs have 
>    been  driving the proposal.
> 
>    As for the collaboration with you, we have called for cochairs 
>    mediation  to ease things.
> 
>    On the other hand, "collaboration " does not mean  one party’s view 
>    automatically overweigh  the other party’s views.
> 
> Fully agree, but finding consensus means conceding to the community when it is clear that authors are wrong in something. Otherwise, consensus can't be declared.
> 
>>  which is the expected behavior according to the PDP, to improve the proposal. I was generous withdrawing my proposal just to avoid and endless discussion, but if you have this position, I should resubmit my proposal and the community can decide which one is better.
>    You are free to do what you want and we will  see how things evolve. It 
>    is interesting that this working group is incapable of working out a 
>    consensual  PDP when we are talking about lack of participation
> 
> Just want to make sure that you think if your complex process is simplifying the increase of community participation. I think is not the case, others may disagree, but at least, we have now discussed concrete pieces that may be reworded to get them right.
> 
>> 
>>     The current version of PDP-BIS proposal is the fruit of community inputs
>>     and raise of multiple concerns. We welcome new areas of *essential*
>>     improvement if we have not dealt with yet.
>> 
>> That's wrong. The PDP is  about improvements not just "essential" ones.
>    Was it not you who  said " such work, cannot be perfect from 1st version"?
>    I am sure if we focus on the essential ones, we will agree to live with 
>    the rest.
> 
> Of course, but both things are compatible. I usually don't expect that a 1st version of a policy proposal is right, but if you don't keep improving it along new version, it will not happen.
> 
>> 
>>     Please, lead this process to conclusion.
>> 
>>     Thank you.
>> 
>>     On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
> 
> 
> 