[rpd] PDWG Co-chairs Update to the Community (#1).

[Murungi Daniel]

Dear Marcus,


Sshhhhhhh … They might hear you!  

The silence is a welcome gift. Am hoping this will spur the industry veterans on the list to speak out more often and guide us where we are lacking. 


Regards,
Murungi Daniel



> On May 10, 2021, at 9:58 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Dear pdp,

> 

> I am surprised that the list is quiet after rfc 7282 was mentioned which show the way to do the ‘work’ by consensus

> 

> In the past we were loud  and  created confusion, lack of understanding of the real ‘work’ by consensus...

> 

> I found this very instructive

> 

>  ⁃ 10 people against and 200  people in favor might not be rough consensus

> 

>  ⁃ 200 people against and 10 people in favor might still  be rough consensus

> 

> Now that we don’t count  “I support” and “I oppose “ without reason, no wonder the place is quiet like a graveyard?

> 

> Good luck to Africa

> 

> 

> Marcus

> 

> 

> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>

> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 10:02:02 AM

> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>

> Cc: Policy Development Working Group <pdwg at afrinic.net>; pdwg-chairs-request at afrinic.net <pdwg-chairs-request at afrinic.net>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-chairs Update to the Community (#1).

>  

> Hi PDWG

> 

> Thanks Arnaud for summarizing rfc7282 and pointing to what we shall be doing regarding policy discussions.

> 

> While achieving rough consensus as described here may look as a difficult exercise, I think that some elements can make the journey  practical:

> 

> 1. Clear definition of problem statement.

> 

> 2. Clear expression of the proposed  solution  to the problem.

> 

> 3. Clear analysis of the pros and cons of the solution.

> 

> This coupled with a good moderation of issues oriented discussions on the acceptance of the problem statement and also on the merits of the solution, would definitely help achieve rough consensus on moving forward or rejecting proposals with clear justifications.

> 

> Cheers

> Noah

> 

> On Sat, 1 May 2021, 19:22 Arnaud AMELINA, <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:

> Hello PDWG,

> 

>  I saw cochairs mentioned rfc 7282....

> Are we ready for:

> 

> 

>  ⁃ Consensus is the path not the  destination

> 

>  ⁃ Rough consensus is achieved when all issues have been addressed and not necessary accommodated

> 

>  ⁃ The lack of disagreement is more important  than agreement 

> 

>  ⁃ 10 people against and 200  people in favor might not be rough consensus

> 

>  ⁃ 200 people against and 10 people in favor might still  be rough consensus

> 

> Rough consensus  and not  unanimity or full consensus In discussing and adopting policies and best practices which are technically sound and serve the interest of the region.

> 

> HTH

> 

> —

> Arnaud

> 

> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 14:28, Darwin Costa <dc at darwincosta.com <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com>> a écrit :

> Dear AfriNIC PDWG, 

> 

> First, we would like to thank the community for entrusting us with this core role and responsibility. Indeed, we express our commitment to ensuring adherence to the CPM and the PDP, and to bringing back decorum in the deliberations of the PDWG.

> 

> As you may have noticed from a previous email, we are currently analyzing the discussions on the current 12 DPPs. This includes preparing a report on the two (2) DPPs that were said to have achieved rough consensus, but which are currently under appeal.

> 

> While the CPM will serve as the core guide in our work and the community’s deliberations, we remind the community to adhere to the AfriNIC Code of Conduct (https://v2.afrinic.net/en/community/code-of-conduct <https://v2.afrinic.net/en/community/code-of-conduct>). This will ensure that deliberations remain professional, respectful and appropriate at all times.

> 

> As the community is aware, PDWG decisions are consensus-driven, with the intention being to ensure that any objections and/or concerns raised during policy discussions are either addressed or resolved adequately. As Co-Chairs, we subscribe to RFC 7282 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282>) which provides a very good guide for building and determining rough consensus in environments similar to ours. We therefore encourage the community to read the document.

> 

> We expect to have our initial analysis concluded in the first week of May 2021 after which we will engage the community accordingly. This will also enable us to progress with the preparations for our next PPM which is scheduled for June 2021.

> 

> In the meantime, we acknowledge that an appeal has been submitted against the confirmation of consensus on our selection as Co-Chairs. The outcome of the appeal and deliberations thereafter which inform our work going forward.

> 

> We look forward to a better AfriNIC for all of us.

> 

> Best Regards,

> AfriNIC PDWG Co-Chairs.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20210510/51f2e024/attachment-0001.html>