[rpd] WE NEED YOUR INPUT, MAXIMUM BY TUESDAY 16TH NOON: Decision of way forward for new (transition or elected) co-chairs - SUMMARY

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Paschal,

 

I realized there was a typo in your name in the document, so corrected if for the last version; sorry about that!

 

I need to learn what means “Thematic and Hermeneutic” … but seems a very logic thing, as without knowing it, I “used it”.

 

I think the lesson here is that:
We can reach consensus (or not) only if we analyze the objections of any proposal in a neutral and objective way.
This can’t be done in a PPM. It is a work that requires time, it requires the chairs to come back to the participants, community and authors to ensure if the objections are refutable or not.
Objections don’t need to be classified as minor or major or whatever. They are just valid or invalid. If they are valid and can’t be refuted but is a good trade-off for the overall community, sometimes the objectors can still concede and allow the proposal to move forward.
 

This is why I think the current PDP needs to be updated (and I wrote a policy proposal about that) and one of the key points is that it is not correct that the decision of the chairs needs to be taken in the PPM, but a few days afterwards, so to be able to open a dialogue in open issues and then resolve the question about the consensus. It also requires a lot of work to follow the discussion and elaborate a continuous “follow-up” of the discussion (for every proposal).

 

Note that I didn’t elaborated the document at the end, instead I was writing it every few hours with the inputs received, and drafting some conclusions, which may change along the discussion progress. If we had more time for the discussion, then I would have asked for clarifications, and this is what I expect from chairs, to follow the discussion and ask the confronted opinions for as many clarifications are needed during all the discussion, unless those clarifications already happen by the discussion itself. Same as asking experts and/or staff when you don’t know about a topic.

 

I hope this could be a useful example in the future for the progress of the PDWG.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 16/2/21 13:15, "Paschal Ochang" <pascosoft at gmail.com> escribió:

 

+1 Jordi for this concise methodological approach. If I can remember very well I was one of the early advocates of halting decisions due to the lack of personnel (co chairs) to moderate PDP discussions. I do support the points where there seems to be a converging consensus. I can see your Thematic and Hermeneutic approach which I applaud.

 

On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 11:20 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

Hi all,

As I've indicated a few days ago, I've elaborated a summary of the discussion on the list, happened until noon CET today.

Find it attached.

I'm convinced that some may disagree. I disagree myself with the choice that the consensus shows, however, until the board takes a decision, in order keep my neutrality, I will not explain why, because even if I disagree, I can concede which that choice, and this is what consensus means.

If anyone believes that I've misinterpreted his/her view (note that the summary is not a literal transcription), please say so, clearly stating your position and justifying the objections. I will consider updating the document with any inputs received until midnight CET before sending it to the board (and copy the list).

Please, keep it simple, we just want to understand if there are valid objections to option 1, which seems to be the one that reached consensus:

"Halt everything regarding PDP decisions, until the board can organize on-line elections in a few weeks (with the previous electoral census)."

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet






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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210217/1eb634d3/attachment-0001.html>