[rpd] New Proposal Received | Simple PDP Update for the new “Normal” (Draft-1)

[lucilla fornaro]

Hello Jordi,

I think right now we should exclusively focusing on what is written on the proposal and for this reason I also believe that a consensus for a DPP already presented in a PPM still need a consensus at PPM and not from the RPD list.

This way we can be sure that the open issue has been addressed properly, also with the support of the Co-chairs that will definitely facilitate the discussion. Very often on the mailing list we can find many opinions and not enough proper objections.
If an issue is not properly addressed we cannot reach any consensus, not even rough consensus because some big questions have been ignored or not properly discussed.
The role of co-chairs is essential.

Lucilla

________________________________
Da: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
Inviato: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:32:32 PM
A: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Oggetto: Re: [rpd] New Proposal Received | Simple PDP Update for the new “Normal” (Draft-1)

Hi Cathie,

The actual practice in AFRINIC, as the chairs can confirm or you can check with videos from the previous meetings, they *look* at the mailing list to determine consensus. What we do with this proposal is to make sure that the PDP make it explicit.

In all the other RIRs the mailing list is also looked by the chairs to determine consensus.

So if you oppose to the proposal because that, then we should cancel all the consensus determination done during all the last years?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 16/9/20 9:19, "Cathie Jay" <cathie.kay89 at gmail.com> escribió:

    Dear Jordi, dear community,

    I oppose this policy because of the way in which consensus is reached.
    The current policy stipulates that consensus should be reached through
    the balancing of the mailing list and forum, and not during the PPM.
    Such policy could pave the way for the intrusion of fake emails within
    the discussion, which could endanger the process of reaching a fair
    consensus, and jeopardize the process of policy-making. In addition,
    it would significantly undermine the work of the co-chairs who will
    facilitate the discussion.

    All best wishes,

    Cathie

    On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD
    <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
    >
    > Hi Chloe,
    >
    >
    >
    > Exactly! I just responded to that to Gaby.
    >
    >
    >
    > Tks!
    >
    >
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Jordi
    >
    > @jordipalet
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > El 9/9/20 13:00, "Chloe Kung" <chloe.kung.public at gmail.com> escribió:
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    >
    > I actually think section 3.4.3 is adequate as the discussion period of each policy proposal is a good 8 weeks. If there is no major objection based on technical justification submitted during the 8 weeks, the chance of having one during the last call period is very small. Even so, the community still have more time than needed to address and discuss the matter. Also this section states and I quote "Within 1 week after the end of the last call, the Working Group Chairs shall confirm whether consensus is maintained.” So if there is such case, meaning the consensus cannot be maintained, it will fall back into the discussion period anyway.
    >
    >
    >
    > Best,
    >
    > Chloe
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
    >
    >
    > **********************************************
    > 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.
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > RPD mailing list
    > RPD at afrinic.net
    > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd



**********************************************
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.




_______________________________________________
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/20200916/078f5283/attachment.html>