[rpd] Community Feedback

[Noah]

On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, 07:38 ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE, <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>
wrote:


>

> We thank you for your understanding, cooperation and the continued trust

> in us

>


On the contrary, the working group understanding,  cooperation and trust in
the cochairs is only possible when cochairs dont undermine and disregard
the WG rules of engagement (PDP) enshrined in the Afrinic CPM.

Not once but twice, the cochairs have attempted to selectively chose what
policy proposal you wish to advance.

Whether its the controversial resources transfer proposal or now this new
controversial recall proposal, its the disregard of the policy development
process that makes members of this working group to fail to understand
cooperate and trust in your efforts as cochairs.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with the recall proposal. However, its
we the working group with the mandate to determine its fate through the
policy development process.

Which is;

1. Authors submit a draft to the rpd list for consideration.
2. Afrinic staff records it and publishes it with an ID.
3. The working group then takes it time to discuss the draft proposal.
4. In the next PPM, the draft proposal is then added to the PPM Agenda by
cochairs.
5. Its authors presents the proposal to the working group who would engage
with the authors for more discussions and clarification etc.
6.Afrinic staff would then also present their staff impact assessment and
analysis.
7. The cochairs would then based on all the above process determine if the
draft proposal was attained rough consensus or not.
8. If there is rough consensus then cochair would give the WG more time
during last call for final discussions which may include editorial changes
etc.
9. Otherwise the draft proposal would have to go back to the WG list for
futher discussion.
10. The determination of whether the proposal needs a waiver of the working
group cochair to invoke section 3.6 due to an emergency would come at this
stage.

So you can clearly see that the policy development process has its
timelines and its never rushed because AFRINIC above all, is affected by
each and every action that is taken through the community bottom up process.

Therefore, when cochairs attempt to invoke section 3.6 while disregarding
the above laid out process from 1 - 9 and rush to attempt to vary the
process, is what makes the working group loose trust and fail to cooperate
as you have seen with all the backlash from various members of this working
group.

You can indeed claim that there was a call by someone in the working group,
requesting you to invoke section 3.6. Its indeed within that person right
to request whatever they want. But its within your wisdom as cochair to
know better and know the process and inform the said member that what they
are requesting is impossible since the CPM is clear on how each new Draft
Policy Proposal is treated as per the PDP.

I shall therefore reiterate that you give respect to the PDP process for
once and fwiw there is no emergency here but what seems like serious
confusion and/or lack of understanding in the part of the cochairs and the
person who called for the process to be disregarded by cochairs.

Whatever we do, always think AFRINIC at the back of your mind. We shall not
compromise AFRINIC.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201205/2ec9b0f8/attachment-0001.html>