<br clear="all">The Dark Knight of the Borg<br>___________________________________<br>"Common sense tells us the world is flat"<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(<a href="http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-GEN-001.htm" target="_blank">http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-GEN-001.htm</a>). And according to the Afrinic factsheets, it is also based on the same principles.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The proposal starts by outlining the principles. The original version of the document that was posted did not have the Incentive section. I encourage you to read the other sections as they are more interesting.<br>
<br>
Could you please point me to a URL for the Afrinic factsheets you are referring to?</blockquote><div>The factsheets I refer to are those handed out at meetings and other training events. They are not available online (at least I haven't found them online) </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2. In that case shouldn't the proposal be an amendment to correct any weaknesses in the existing policy?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That is the aim of the proposal. It lists which policy is affected. I suggest that you ask the PDP Moderator Group whether that is the correct way to do an amendment.<br>
<br>
According to the Incentive sections of the existing policy and the proposal:<br>
<br>
AFPUB-2008-GEN-001:<br>
<br>
"Now that AfriNIC has been well established, it is being proposed to revise<br>
the policy development process to increase participation from the community<br>
in the process."<br>
<br>
AFPUB-2009-GEN-001:<div class="im"><br>
<br>
"The objective of this proposal is to create a policy development process in<br>
the AfriNIC service region based on three principles: openness, transparency<br>
and fairness."<br></div></blockquote><div>My concern here is this "...to create a policy development process ..." implies there is none in existence. I think it will be more effective if the new proposal makes it explicitly clear that it is trying to build and modify an existing policy. Sometimes, a structure is so bad the only remedy is to tear it down and rebuild it, but this is not one of those situations.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
<br></div>
It is better to make the amendments by coming up with a comprehensive document which defines what the process is about and how it should work.</blockquote><div>And linking them to what specific parts of the existing policy are being improved. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
3. Could the author clarify the difference between PDWG and the exisint PDP-MG? as well as bw PDML and rpd? Frankly these don't make any sense.... giving a dog a new name makes it better?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Quoting the proposal:<br>
<br>
"The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the proposals.<br>
Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person."<br>
<br>
And AFPUB-2008-GEN-001:<br>
<br>
"A PDP Moderator Group (MG) will be set-up to moderate and coordinate the<br>
policy development process and discussions. It will consist of three(3)<br>
members of the community. One AfriNIC staff will also be providing<br>
support to the MG."<br>
<br>
You are part of the Policy Development Working Group. You are not part of the existing PDP Moderator Group. </blockquote><div>Quite clair enough. You mean instead of the entire community discussing policy through the rpd mailing list, it will now be up to the PDWG? .... that doesn't sound bottom up and open to me. ;-)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> For a proposal to be adopted, it requires the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group. The name is just a name and a way to refer to the group. I could have called it Dog Group. I doubt the community would approve of such a name. The name PDML is already used in the existing policy (AFPUB-2008-GEN-001). There is no change as such between the existing policy and the proposal.<br>
<br>
You asked about weaknesses in one of your questions. The existing policy does not define how the PDP Moderator Group can be fired. Let's take a hypothetical case where the members of the PDP Moderator Group cannot be reached. If we follow the existing policy, the community would be unable to define new policies in such a case. The proposal provides a means to recall the Chairs (see Conflict Resolution Section).<br>
<br>
The existing policy does not discussion about conflict resolution. For example, if you disagree with the decision of the PDP Moderator Group, you have no recourse. That is discussed in the first paragraph of the Conflict Resolution Section in the proposal.<br>
<br>
Currently, a policy can only be implemented after it has been adopted at the open policy meeting. As these meetings are held twice yearly, the minimum time for a proposal to be adopted is six months if the proposal is submitted after a meeting. This proposal takes into account that there can be emergencies where it is not sensible to wait for the next open policy meeting. You have to justify the urgency though.<br>
</blockquote><div>These are the specifics I like to see, and better still if you could quote the relevant parts of the new proposal that addresses these weaknessis. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
One minor fix in the proposal is the change from AfriNIC Board of Trustees to AfriNIC Board of Directors.<br>
<br>
The proposal specifies that all aspects of the process and the procedures that are developed to implement a policy are documented and publicly available. When things are transparent, you do not have to deal with arbitrary rules or resort to guesswork to determine what the requirements are.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
S. Moonesamy <br>
</blockquote></div><br>