Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Way forward as we approach AFRINIC-34 Public Policy Meeting.
info at alevemine.com
Sun Sep 19 13:35:30 UTC 2021
Dear PDWG, dear AFRINIC
In response to your message, the below is part of an effort to face today’s
challenges, here as they reflect on AFRINIC, while said challenges cover a
lot more ground. Disclosing: I am an individual at the origin of the
OneGoal Initiative for Governance onegoalinitiative.org which is based on
insights gained from studying the Margin Problem themarginproblem.com. It
is while working on that that I landed in this thread. So, with regard to:
Policy Development Process, PDWG Chairs (eligibility, selection & roles),
and Conflict Resolution:
For all 3 questions: The introduction of mandatory disclosures for all
participants in governance conversations in a way to fully grasp what a
person wants to achieve and what they can or cannot do or say: much more
extensive than what I’ve written above about myself. Live usability of this
information in a way that is directly targeted at a person - with
compassion - in conversations. If a person says they don’t agree with x
because of y then we want anyone to be able to say x interferes with the
interests of z on which that person depends. Indeed, if we pretend that
these dependencies don’t impact the outcome, not only will the outcome be
shaped by these dependencies in avoidable ways, but all participants will
waste time, if not their life, discussing decoy arguments that are tools
for promoting our underlying drives that are irrelevant to our actual
Dependencies listed will themselves have dependencies: an affiliation may
have some of the same shareholders or founders as another organisation, and
the expressed missions never quite fully or clearly disclose organisations’
actions and intentions. A person may have allegiances, liabilities or own
goals that are not written anywhere accessible. That a person or
organisation has truly good intentions isn’t enough for them to act
accordingly: they may have a liability, another entity may be pressuring
them, holding them hostage with some type of argument, or just exercising
authority of some kind over them, be it social or cultural. Therefore trust
in a person’s intrinsic goodness isn’t enough. The person may also just
believe that a powerful entity will give them favors protecting their
future if they do one thing as opposed to another, although that presumably
powerful party never promised any such thing, nor accurately figured out
what is best for itself, for that sake. And a person may be an investor or
executive in a company but there as a speculator or with an otherwise
This is by no means simple nor completely double-checkable, but we want to
lay the foundations right in order to be able to build anything on top.
For eligibility, selection, roles: the allowable dependency structure of
AFRINIC along the criteria of Keyness, Territory, Impact, Strategic
motility and agility, and Management decision power listed in, albeit in
the framework of startups,
can be defined, and members screened accordingly. That said, the article
doesn’t take into consideration all possible types of dependencies, so more
thought needs to go into that. This also requires a constant awareness of
updates in dependency structures of members.
Unfortunately, as long as we, around the world, don’t identify our problem
accurately, our own risks will rise and issues such as those discussed here
will be the subject of an arms race (I’m sure our ingenuity will be
squandered to come up with a way to use the above against ourselves, too),
because the underlying exploitative drive, or belief that exploitation is
to the advantage of the exploiter, that has many faces, including but not
limited to arbitrage and any grabbing of power, also active internally in
other regions and areas, is ill-informed. Therefore, information and
meanwhile continued defense are needed.
Footer that comes with every email, not specific to this message:
Please get my newsletter: enter your email address here.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 7:23 AM PDWG Chair <dacostadarwin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
> As at 4 August 2021, there are 8 Draft policy proposals under discussion,
> of which 3 are technical policies and 5 are related to the PDP (Section 3
> of the CPM). Four of these 5 proposals expire before the upcoming PPM
> scheduled for 15-18 Nov 2021, unless they are reviewed.
> However, the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) needs to bear in mind
> that competing policy proposals will only increase the load on the PDP and
> defeats the consensus basis well before any discussion happens on the RPD
> mailing-list and at the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). We are also aware of
> the Working Group’s calls for clear problem statements that authors could
> then collaborate and draft solutions to. The PDWG is also divided as to
> whether the CPM Section 3 needs to be reviewed with the submission of
> multiple proposals or through one proposal.
> Based on the foregoing, preparations for the upcoming Public Policy
> Meeting which is scheduled for 15-19 November 2021 has to be kickstarted.
> In regard to all the proposals aimed at updating AFRINIC’s Policy
> Development Process , we invite the authors of the 5 proposals to:
> 1. Focus and come up with clear problem statements related to Section
> 3 of the CPM,
> 2. To ensure that the problem statements don’t overlap and thus the
> need for the authors to collaborate,
> 3. The problem statements to be shared with the PDWG for inputs and
> 4. Each group of authors to then come up with a draft policy proposal
> that addresses their respective problem statement,
> 5. The PDWG to objectively and constructively discuss the proposals
> with the aim of improving the text, which should ultimately lead to a
> better Policy Development Process.
> The assessment of the draft policy proposals, excluding the "Board
> Prerogatives on the PDP", was shared with the PDWG during the AFRINIC-33
> PPM. To facilitate the way forward, the assessment has been updated to
> include the “Board Prerogatives on the PDP”. It is available here:
> Based on our assessment but subject to the PDWG’s and authors’ collective
> agreement, we have identified the following problem areas which need to be
> 1. Policy Development Process,
> 2. PDWG Chairs (eligibility, selection & roles),
> 3. Conflict Resolution.
> Time is of utmost importance and the following timeline is being proposed.
> It is however up to the PDWG to align with this proposal or refine the
> To facilitate the way forward, we request that the PDWG shares its views
> and feedback on this proposal by 02 September 2021 at 23:59 UTC. AFRINIC
> and the PDWG Chairs remain available to the PDWG and authors for support
> (webinars for brainstorming, administrative support).
> Warm Regards,
> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs.
>  - Co-chair Recall
> Board Prerogatives on the PDP
> Simple PDP Update for the new Normal -
> PDP Working Group Guidelines and Procedures -
> Chairs Election Process -
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 126096 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the RPD