[rpd] KICKED OUT OF MICROPHONE QUEUE!

[Cathie Jay]

Dear Sami, dear community,

What is central here is to give a platform to speak to everyone waiting in
the queue, and this implies that the time for each speaker should be
restricted to a few minutes. The question of a time limit for each speaker
is therefore important. You can perfectly voice a well-structured,
outstanding argument in a very short time. This is perfectly doable.

All best wishes,

Cathie

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 10:31 AM Sami Salih <sami.salih at outlook.com> wrote:


> Salam,

>

> It is really very difficult for the co-chairs to make everybody happy,

> time is very limited and it's a finite and scare resource. Limiting the

> intervention time may give chance for more people to talk, but the idea may

> need more time to be addressed, taking the system and translation issue,

> the chairs may decided to give more time for the sake of clearly get the

> point, equal time is fair but not alway work.

> I sugget to utilize the chat, and one of the chairs alway follow the chat

> and reply or cast the question to the author. In some cases this chair may

> deised to give the mic for more larification.

> So my proposal is not to ask for the mic, but write your thought to the

> chat and let the chairs manage this. I also ask staff to copy the chat for

> each session and share it in the rpd, so its become one of the meeting

> archive.

>

>

> *Sami Salih*

> ------------------------------

> *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Sent:* Thursday, September 17, 2020 11:14 AM

> *To:* rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] KICKED OUT OF MICROPHONE QUEUE!

>

>

> While I agree that this can be much improved (yesterday before starting, I

> already asked if we can have an “on screen” timer and the developers

> confirmed that it is coming), I will suggest that we make as much as we

> can, use of the chat (so chairs can try to synthetize the issues) and

> specially the mailing list.

>

>

>

> This is also good for the authors to be able to respond even if there is

> not time. Yesterday I tried as much as possible to keep with the chat for

> every question, but it is almost impossible for authors vs “many”. That’s

> why I prefer the mailing list.

>

>

>

> This also shows how important is the “Simple PDP Update for the new

> “Normal”” proposal, because it gives the community 8 weeks to comment on

> the proposals and not just “until the presentation”, even if the meeting

> has finish and the chairs 2 weeks to take a decision after that. So if

> somebody has an objection and he can’t raise in the meeting, he can still

> do it in the mailing list and the chairs have time to read all the chats

> and mailing list even if they need several days (remember that this is a

> voluntary job, they also have their daily job).

>

>

>

> And what it is even more important. In order to really take a good

> decision of if there is consensus or not the chairs need to write down all

> the for and against and decide if they have been resolved or are mere

> “personal opinions”.

>

>

>

> That’s also needed in case of no-consensus for the authors to understand

> what they missed and what they may need to change in an new version for

> achieving consensus, or even consider if some of the objections can’t be

> accomodated.

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Jordi

>

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> El 17/9/20 10:07, "Cathie Jay" <cathie.kay89 at gmail.com> escribió:

>

>

>

> Dear Emem, dear community,

>

>

>

> Thank you very much for raising this contentious issue of being retrieved

> from the queue during yesterday's debate. I would urge the chairs to

> allocate a time limit for each speaker's slot who are waiting in the queue,

> as the first code of conduct. The Chairs will then monitor the time during

> which each speaker will express his/her thoughts about the policy. The

> chairs could at any time send a kind warning to let the speaker know that

> he/she will have to wrap up. Good luck to everybody for today's debate.

>

>

>

> All best wishes,

>

> Cathie

>

>

>

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:46 PM Emem William <dwizard65 at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

>

>

> I trust everyone here is doing great.

>

> I want to call the attention of the community to the unfortunate incident

> that occurred in today's PDWG meeting with regards to the microphone queue.

>

>

>

> I noticed that very few speakers were allowed to utilize almost all the

> duration of the commenting time irrespective of the fact that the

> microphone queue had  more members, especially during the Policy Compliance

> Dashboard discussion. I, alongside other participants were constantly

> removed from the microphone queue and all our efforts to rejoin ended in

> fiasco, perhaps due to time constraints.

>

>

>

> I suggest that the time allocated to each comment on the microphone queue

> in subsequent meetings should be adjusted with respect to the number of

> people on the queue so as to give room for atleast 90% of the participants

> on the queue without encroaching on time allocated for other discussions or

> presentations.

>

> I would like it if the Co-chairs could do this in the interest of all.

>

>

>

> A million thanks.

>

>

>

> Regards,

> Emem William

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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

>

> **********************************************

> 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/20200917/e231afa5/attachment.html>