Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Summary of proposal PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures -AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04
vincent at ngundi.me.ke
Wed Dec 8 15:19:05 UTC 2021
The summary of the elements that led to the PDWG Chairs decision for
the proposal PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures
-AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04 that was discussed during the AFRINIC-34
Public Policy Meeting is as follows :-
Pending concern. A clause in section 3.3.3 as stated below states
that a candidate for the co-chair position must have attended At
Least one meeting in person over three years to qualify for this
In the era of Covid, it is possible that in person meeting might not
come back or might take a few more years. If this policy gets ratified
as it is. It disqualifies everybody from contesting for this position.
Pending concern. In section 3.3.3, there is a voting process that
doesn’t involve the entire WG stipulated. I Think it is awkward at
least that a voting process is proposed but the entire community is
not allowed to exercise their franchise as community members.
I am opposed to limiting voting to past co-chairs. The community is
perfectly capable of voting and this proposal essentially
disenfranchises individuals in favor of an electoral college.
Pending concern. The proposition that the CEO serves as the arbiter
of acceptable speech is untenable, moreover the entire approach of
the section is badly framed and crafted:
It speaks of an "appeal" to the CEO and then speaks of "complainers".
This is badly ambiguous and unworkable. If a person is alleged to
violate the code of conduct somebody complains (who logically can be
referred to as the complainer, but should be called a complainant) to
the co-chairs. The co-chairs then consider the complaint and make a
decision (which decision is taken without affording audi to the person
who against whom the complaint is made) which if adverse against a
person results in posting rights suspension. That person (who could be
called an appellant) can appeal to the CEO but is he now complaining (a
complainer) about the co-chairs. What of the situation where the
co-chairs decline to act? Do the original complainers have a right to go
to the CEO? This problem is all the more severe if the CEO is engaged in
discussions on the group and is the complainant alleging conduct violations
Pending concern. In 3.3.3, since the co-chair selection process is
to take place in a meeting, In the event that one nomination is
received, with the CEO leading the consensus process to determine
the next co-chair and there is a lack of consensus, there is no
stated guideline as to who chairs that current ongoing PPM.
Pending concern. 3.3.9 Lack of consensus definition. Many folks
don't read RFCs - there is no clear view of if the consensus is
determined also in the mailing list discussion. Lack of last-call
definition Lack of clear timings for the process.
The decision of PDWG Co-chairs is that no rough consensus has been
reached due to the number of valid concerns not yet addressed during the
online session and from the mailing list. The draft policy proposal,
therefore, goes back to the RPD mailing list for further discussion.
Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD