<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/05/2017 12:23, Ornella GANKPA
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Hi Mark,<br>
<br>
I've changed thread so we don’t hijack the other one.</p>
<p><i>2017-05-12 9:42 GMT+01:00 Mark Elkins</i><i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></i><i><span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za"
target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);">mje@posix.co.za</a>></span></i><i>:</i><i><br>
</i></p>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><i><span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34);
font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;
font-style: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal;
font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial;
text-decoration-color: initial; display: inline
!important; float: none;"></span></i>
<p style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial,
sans-serif; font-size: small; font-style: normal;
font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); text-decoration-style: initial;
text-decoration-color: initial;"><i>Other policies are
simply way out and should be still-born - such as the
PDP-BIS proposal, which destroys a number of the qualities
of how the PDP currently runs.</i></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Regarding your above comment, I would actually point out that
PDP-BIS addresses this issue. Please refer to 6.1 - Phases of a
policy proposal below:<br>
</p>
<p><br>
<b>During this phase, the PDWG Chair will assess the clarity and
the relevance of the problem statement in accordance to the
scope of the PDP and the existing policies. PDWG Chair or
AFRINIC staff can work with the initiator(s) to redefine the
problem statement if need be.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>If this is shepherding the process as what happens in ARIN, I
have no problem. this is where the shepherds assist the author in
developing the process, perhaps even presenting it (if necessary)
at meetings. This is great for people new at presenting policies.
The policy though is still owned by the author.<br>
</b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b>For policy proposals which are out of scope of AFRINIC PDP,
</b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>This may happen and is possibly OK....</b><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b>or addressing the same issue as another policy proposal
already adopted,</b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>so you wouldn't like to see multiple proposals to address for
example the soft landing proposal? This I totally disagree with.
If two policies are more or less identical, then sanity should
prevail and the authors should work together - then I agree. If
both address the same policy but do it in different ways - they
should both stay.<br>
<br>
</b>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b> the PDWG Chair shall dissuade the initiator(s) from
submitting to the working group.<br>
</b><b>In case of disagreement or doubt the PDWG Chair may
consult the working group on whether or not the working group
is willing to adopt the proposal for discussion based on its
problem statement.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<b>Bovine excrement. A policy should only be withdrawn according to
the current mechanisms. You are squashing the freedom of
expression and the ability to disagree or come up with competing
solutions. Not good. This is a community, not a dictatorship.<br>
<br>
</b>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b>Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants
all rights to the working group and the proposal becomes a
community document.</b></p>
</blockquote>
<b>...robbing the initiator? Hu? Disenfranchising is evil.<br>
<br>
Generally, the "Policy Development Process" is bad. About the only
part I like is the </b><br>
<b>shepherding part. Drop the rest and I'll support it.<br>
<br>
</b>
<blockquote
cite="mid:b94613e2-b7ee-5333-923d-4d9e5dab68cd@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><i>2017-05-12 9:42 GMT+01:00 Mark Elkins</i><i><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></i><i><span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za"
target="_blank" style="color: rgb(17, 85, 204);">mje@posix.co.za</a>></span></i><i>:</i></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"><i>which destroys a number of the
qualities of how the PDP currently runs.</i></blockquote>
<p>Please clarify how the policy destroys the qualities of PDP.
Initiators welcome comments and suggestions for improvement.<br>
</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Honest Ornella GANKPA
</pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 29/04/2017 à 15:42, Dewole Ajao a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:47814aaf-9caf-23b1-9851-975951b95d72@forum.org.ng">Good
day AFRINIC PDWG Members, <br>
<br>
We have received a new policy Proposal - "AFRINIC Policy
Development Process Bis (AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-01)" <br>
<br>
From the following authors: <br>
(a) Komi Abel Elitcha | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a>
| Independent <br>
(b) Arnaud A. A. AMELINA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a> |
TogoRER <br>
(c) Honest Ornella GANKPA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a> |
Independent <br>
(d) Alain P. AINA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Alain.Aina@wacren.net">Alain.Aina@wacren.net</a>
| WACREN <br>
<br>
The proposal contents are below and published at
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2083-afrinic-policy-development-process-bis">https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2083-afrinic-policy-development-process-bis</a><br>
<br>
Please take some time to go through the proposal contents and
provide your feedback. <br>
<br>
Thank you. <br>
<br>
PDWG Co-chairs <br>
<br>
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————— <br>
ID: AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-01 <br>
Submission Date: 27 April 2017 <br>
Version: 1 <br>
Author(s): <br>
Komi Abel Elitcha | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a>
| Independent <br>
Arnaud A. A. AMELINA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a> |
TogoRER <br>
Honest Ornella GANKPA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a> |
Independent <br>
Alain P. AINA | <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Alain.Aina@wacren.net">Alain.Aina@wacren.net</a>
| WACREN <br>
Amends: Art. 3.0 of the Consolidated Policy Manual <br>
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————— <br>
<br>
1.0 Summary of the Problem Being Addressed by this Policy
Proposal <br>
The current Policy Development Process is shaped around a
working group, which is administered by two Chairs. <br>
<br>
The working group operations rules are not clearly defined as
for: <br>
* Requirements for chairmanship <br>
* Chairs roles and responsibilities <br>
* How Chairs exercise their powers <br>
* Chairs election <br>
* Chairs resignation <br>
* Working group code of conduct <br>
<br>
The consensus process used by the working group for
decision-making is not defined, opening doors for
interpretations and inactions. <br>
<br>
The current process does not have provision for proposal
adoption, which induces duplication of proposals dealing with
same problem, lack of clarity of problem statements and
proposals out of scope of the PDP. It also does not define a
clear method for moving proposals forward. <br>
<br>
The current PDP does not have provision for board adopting
policies as per section 11.4 of the AFRINIC constitution in the
varying of the process. <br>
<br>
2.0 Summary of How this Proposal Addresses the Problem <br>
This Policy proposal addresses these issues by: <br>
Designing a policy development process around one Chair assisted
by a Vice-Chair; <br>
Defining the roles and responsibilities of the Chair and
Vice-Chair; <br>
Defining how Chair exercises his authority and powers; <br>
Detailing the consensus process with regard to major and minor
objections and responsibility of the Chair of the working group
in gauging the consensus; <br>
Providing with different phases for policy proposals: from
adoption till last call and ratification by the AFRINIC board of
Directors; <br>
Providing provision on how board adopts policy as per section
11.4 of the constitution that is managed in varying the PDP. <br>
Clarifying disputes and appeals mechanisms <br>
<br>
3.0 Proposal <br>
This proposal replaces section 3.0 of the CPM (The Policy
Development Process) entirely as follows: <br>
<br>
3.0 The Policy Development Process <br>
3.1 Scope <br>
The Policy Development Process covers the development and
modification of policies for proper and responsible usage and
management of Internet Number Resources within the AFRINIC
service region. <br>
The PDP is shaped to come up with clear, technically effective
and useful policies. <br>
Policies for Internet number resource management must be
evaluated for technical effectiveness against three
requirements: conservation, aggregation, and registration. <br>
Changes to the Policy Development Process itself will also
follow the process. <br>
Internet number resource policies are distinctly separate from
AFRINIC general business practices and procedures. General
business practices and procedures are not within the purview of
the Policy Development Process. <br>
Internet number resources consist of Internet Protocol version 4
(IPv4) address space, Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address
space, and Autonomous System (AS) numbers. <br>
<br>
3.2 Policy Development Principles <br>
All policies are developed by the Internet community following
four principles: openness, transparency, fairness and bottom-up.
The Internet community initiates and discusses the policy
proposals. If consensus is reached on a given policy proposal,
it is recommended to the AFRINIC Board of Directors to be
ratified as an effective policy to be implemented within AFRINIC
region. <br>
<br>
3.2.1 Openness <br>
All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may
participate. There are no qualifications for participation. <br>
<br>
3.2.2 Transparency <br>
All aspects of the Policy Development Process are documented and
publicly available via the AFRINIC website. The discussions are
publicly archived. All procedures that are developed to
implement the policy are documented by AFRINIC and are publicly
available. <br>
<br>
3.2.3 Fairness <br>
The policies are to ensure fair distribution of Internet number
resources and facilitate the operation of the Internet within
AFRINIC Service Region. <br>
<br>
3.2.4 Bottom-Up <br>
The community drives policy development. <br>
<br>
3.3 Operations of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) <br>
The Policy Development Working group (PDWG) provides an open
public forum to discuss Internet numbers resource management
policies and related topics of interest to AFRINIC and the
Internet community in the AFRINIC service region. PDWG sessions
are held at AFRINIC Public policy meetings. Between meetings,
discussions continue via the Resource Policy Discussions (rpd)
mailing list. The PDWG is open to all interested individuals. <br>
The Policy Development Working Group is primarily administered
by one Chair and one vice-Chair. The WG Chair and Vice-Chair
perform a vital role in managing the working group. The
effectiveness of the PDWG is dependent on the active
participation of the Chair and the Vice-Chair. The PDWG Chair
and Vice-Chair undertake their work on a volunteer basis. <br>
The PDWG Chair is responsible for coordinating the activities of
the policy development working group. He guides a policy
proposal through its different phases in order to gauge
consensus. <br>
The Vice-Chair helps the WG Chair to coordinate the activities
of the policy development working group. <br>
The WG Chair and Vice-Chair are expected to attend all AFRINIC
Public Policy Meetings. The WG Chair and Vice-Chair must remain
subscribed to the AFRINIC Policy Discussion mailing list( <a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>) for the
duration of their term. Both the PDWG Chair and Vice-Chair must
also be subscribed to the AFRINIC member-discuss mailing list
during their term. <br>
The challenge of managing the policy development working group
sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration
of the issues against the need to make forward progress. The
working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for
striking this balance. The Working Group Chair has the
responsibility for overseeing the process. <br>
To facilitate making forward progress, the Working Group Chair
may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from an
individual, based upon the following criteria: <br>
<br>
Old: <br>
The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and
is redundant with information previously available; <br>
<br>
Minor: <br>
The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been
resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing
decision; <br>
<br>
Timing: <br>
The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet
opened for discussion; <br>
<br>
Scope: <br>
The input is outside of the scope of the working group. <br>
Occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behavior on a
mailing list that, in the opinion of the WG Chair, is disruptive
to the WG process. Unless the disruptive behavior is severe
enough that it must be stopped immediately, the WG Chair should
attempt to discourage the disruptive behavior by communicating
directly with the offending individual. If the behavior
persists, the WG Chair should send at least one public warning
on the RPD mailing list. As a last resort and typically after
one or more explicit warnings, the WG Chair may suspend the
mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual for
a period of not more than 30 days. Even while posting privileges
are suspended, the individual must not be prevented from
receiving messages posted to the list. Like all other WG Chair
decisions, any suspension of posting privileges is subject to
appeal. <br>
<br>
3.3.1 Responsibilities of PDWG Chair <br>
The responsibilities of the AFRINIC PDWG Chair are listed below:
<br>
<br>
3.3.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting: <br>
Introduce a policy proposal into the adoption phase <br>
Announce policy proposals to the policy discussion mailing list
<br>
Discourages any behavior that jeopardizes open participation to
policy discussions, especially for newcomers. <br>
Monitors discussions held on AFRINIC policy discussion mailing
list ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>)
<br>
Announces the call for presentation of policy proposals for
Public Policy Meetings on the policy discussion mailing list, <br>
Read submitted proposals <br>
Remain subscribed to AFRINIC RPD and member-discuss lists during
his term. <br>
At the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting <br>
Read initiators' slides to familiarize themselves with the
details and ensure it matches proposal text. In case of any
difference, submission of an updated version of the proposal on
rpd list to notify the working group is required, even if these
changes will not be considered. <br>
Create agenda presentation slides for the meeting with the
AFRINIC staff. <br>
Guide the consensus gauging process; announces the current phase
of a policy proposal. <br>
Read AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting minutes and makes corrections
as necessary <br>
Present the policy discussion working group report to the
AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting. <br>
<br>
3.3.1.2 After a Public Policy Meeting: <br>
Send report of Public Policy Meeting to the community and policy
discussion mailing lists including policy proposal discussion
outcomes and open action items. <br>
Monitor discussion during the concluding phase for comments
period. <br>
Summarize discussions and, following the end of the call for
comments, post the decision regarding whether the proposal has
reached rough consensus or not. <br>
The Chair may delegate tasks to Vice-Chair as necessary. <br>
<br>
3.3.2 Responsibilities of PDWG Vice-Chair <br>
Vice-Chair responsibilities include but are not limited to: <br>
Attend at least one AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting held each
year. <br>
Remain subscribed to the policy discussion mailing list for the
duration of their time as Vice-Chair <br>
Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the AFRINIC Public
Policy Meeting <br>
Undertake any of the tasks normally performed by the PDWG Chair
when requested. In the event that the PDWG Chair is unavailable
to perform some of his duties, the Vice-Chair will assume these
responsibilities. <br>
<br>
3.3.3 Electing the Chair and Vice-Chair <br>
The AFRINIC community elects a policy development working group
Chair and one Vice-Chair for a two year term. The PDWG Chair and
Vice-Chair’s elections occur in alternate years. <br>
The AFRINIC NomCom appoints the PDWG Chair and Vice-Chair using
the following process: <br>
AFRINIC Staff sends a call for nominations to the policy
development mailing list ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>).
The call will contain: <br>
Details of the duties of the position. <br>
The closing date for nominations; 30 days from the date of the
call <br>
A request for a short biography and description of nominees. <br>
A requirement that candidates for the Chair position should be
active on the AFRINIC policy mailing list and must have attended
at least two (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings, <br>
A requirement for candidates to confirm their ability and
willingness to commit to the responsibilities associated with
the Chair and Vice-Chair positions. <br>
If at least one nomination is received by closing date, an
election must be held. The election must be held at the upcoming
Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the agenda. <br>
Candidates will be invited to give a short speech. Voting will
take place by a count of a show of hands. <br>
Only candidates who are present at the public policy meeting
will be included in the vote. If a current Vice-Chair stands for
the position of Chair and is elected, the newly vacant
Vice-Chair position can be filled by one of the remaining
candidates for the Chair position or by a call for volunteers at
the public policy meeting. <br>
There will be a handover period. The outgoing Chair will manage
proposals reaching consensus at the current Public Policy
meeting to the completion of the Policy Development Process. <br>
<br>
3.3.4 Removing a PDWG Chair or Vice-Chair <br>
If the PDWG Chair or Vice-Chair does not attend one in every two
consecutive AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting, the Chair or
Vice-Chair will be removed from their role. The process of
electing a replacement will then begin. <br>
Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any
time, upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC
Board of Directors. The request must be supported by at least
ten (10) other persons. The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall
appoint a recall committee, excluding the persons requesting the
recall and the Working Group Chair. The recall committee shall
investigate the circumstances of the request for the recall and
determine the outcome. <br>
If the outcome is that the WG Chair or Vice-Chair has to be
recalled then the process of electing a replacement will then
begin. <br>
<br>
3.3.5 Resignation of a Chair or Vice-Chair <br>
If a PDWG Chair resigns, the vice-Chair will assume the role of
Chair and nominate a member of the community to exercise the
role of Vice-Chair until the next Public Policy Meeting. This
nomination has to be approved through non-objection by the
working group via the mailing list. At least 30 days prior to
the Public Policy Meeting, the AFRINIC NomCom will initiate
procedures for electing the new Chair. <br>
If a Vice-Chair resigns, the Chair shall nominate a member of
the community to exercise the role of Vice-Chair until the next
Public Policy Meeting. This nomination has to be approved
through non-objection by the working group via the mailing list.
At least one month prior to the Public Policy Meeting, the
AFRINIC NomCom will initiate procedures for electing the new
Chair. <br>
If both Chair and vice Chair resign, The AFRINIC Ltd CEO shall
lead the appointment by the working group of an interim Chair
via the mailing list or at The Public Policy meeting. <br>
The Interim Chair will act up to the election of the new Chair
and shall be assisted by AFRINIC staff. <br>
<br>
4.0 Consensus inside the PDWG <br>
Most of the decisions in the working group operations and
discussions on policy proposals are made through rough
consensus, unless specified otherwise. <br>
The PDWG consensus process is a multi-stakeholder approach to
decision-making. The process is used to develop the best
possible resource management policies for the AFRINIC service
region. <br>
The consensus process begins when somebody proposes a new
policy. <br>
This discussion phase begins on the mailing list and continues
during the Public policy meetings. <br>
<br>
4.1 Minor objections <br>
A minor objection is one where the objector believes some
problems may occur for some participants in the group if the
proposal goes forward. <br>
The PDWG participants should work together to see if the
proposal can be modified to overcome minor objections. <br>
However, it is not always possible to overcome these objections.
In this case, the Chair may ask the objectors if they are
prepared to acknowledge that the overall advantages of the
proposal outweigh their objections and are willing to set them
aside. <br>
<br>
4.2 Major objections <br>
Major objections are serious and indicate a belief that major
problems will occur for parts of the community if the proposal
goes forward; therefore, the proposal cannot be adopted in its
current format. <br>
The Chair should devote sufficient time for the PDWG to discuss
ways to overcome major objections. <br>
PDWG Participants, including the proponent, should work together
to develop solutions that overcome major objections. <br>
Consensus is reached on a proposal if the PDWG is able to
successfully work through all objections in this way. It is not
necessary for everyone to agree with the proposal. ‘Rough
consensus’ is the point where all objections have been resolved
or given due consideration and the PDWG believes the benefits
outweigh the disadvantages. <br>
<br>
4.3 Reaching consensus <br>
In the meeting the Chair may ask for a show-of-hands, or other
techniques, to gauge support for a policy proposal. The use of
show-of-hands or other techniques is not a vote. It is a way of
broadly measuring opinion and the Chair’s final decision takes
many additional factors into account, including earlier
discussions on the mailing list. <br>
The aim of the PDWG is to carefully consider all opinions before
making a decision. At the end of the discussion, the Chair will
decide if the working group has reached consensus. <br>
Consensus is achieved when everyone consents to the decision of
the group. The decision may not be everyone’s first preference,
but is acceptable to all participants. <br>
<br>
5.0 Public Policy Meeting <br>
Public Policy Meeting means a meeting open to the community
wherein proposals for policies are discussed within the
framework of the Policy Development Process (PDP) <br>
The agenda of the meeting shall be announced by the Chair of the
PDWG on the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two
weeks prior to the meeting. No change can be made to a policy
proposal within one week of the meeting. This is so that a
stable version of the policy proposal can be considered at the
meeting. <br>
The WG Chair determines whether rough consensus has been
achieved during the Public Policy Meeting. <br>
When a policy proposal has reached the Review Phase, it is
placed on the agenda of an open public policy meeting. <br>
If the Chair can’t participate in meeting, the Vice-Chair will
lead the meeting assisted by AFRINIC staff. <br>
If the Vice-Chair can’t participate in meeting, the Chair will
lead the meeting assisted by AFRINIC staff. <br>
If WG Chair and Vice-Chair can’t participate to meetings, the
working group shall appoint one (1) person to lead the session
and is assisted by one AFRINIC staff. <br>
While open discussion and contribution is essential to working
group success, the Chair is responsible for ensuring forward
progress. When acceptable to the WG, the Chair may call for
restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at
Public Policy meetings for the purpose of achieving progress.
The Working Group Chair then has the responsibility to refuse to
grant the floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise
covering inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the
Chair is disrupting the WG process. <br>
<br>
6.0 Policy proposals <br>
Anyone can submit a policy proposal to PDWG Chair. One or all
initiators of a policy proposal have the option to remain
anonymous. Hence PDWG Chair has the responsibility to act as
document editor or set a call for a volunteer from the WG to act
as document editor on the policy proposal. <br>
A Document Editor is responsible for ensuring that the contents
of the document accurately reflect the decisions that have been
made by the working group. <br>
<br>
6.1 Phases of a policy proposal <br>
A policy proposal follows four phases during its evolution
through policy development process: Adoption Phase, Discussion
Phase, Review Phase and the Concluding Phase. <br>
<br>
6.1.1 The Adoption Phase <br>
During this phase, the PDWG Chair will assess the clarity and
the relevance of the problem statement in accordance to the
scope of the PDP and the existing policies. <br>
PDWG Chair or AFRINIC staff can work with the initiator(s) to
redefine the problem statement if need be. <br>
For policy proposals which are out of scope of AFRINIC PDP, or
addressing the same issue as another policy proposal already
adopted, the PDWG Chair shall dissuade the initiator(s) from
submitting to the working group. <br>
In case of disagreement or doubt the PDWG Chair may consult the
working group on whether or not the working group is willing to
adopt the proposal for discussion based on its problem
statement. <br>
Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants all
rights to the working group and the proposal becomes a community
document. <br>
In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures,
the intention is to benefit the community and the public at
large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others. <br>
The adoption phase should last maximum of two weeks. At the term
of two weeks, based on consensus, PDWG Chair declares the
beginning of the Discussion phase or declares the rejection of
the policy proposal. <br>
The initiator(s) of the policy proposal can reformulate their
problem statement and go back to the adoption phase. <br>
<br>
6.1.2 The Discussion Phase <br>
Once the PDWG Chair declares the adoption of a policy proposal
for discussion, the Discussion Phase begins on the RPD Mailing
List ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>).
The PDWG Chair should set the period for the Discussion Phase
and this must be for at least four weeks. <br>
During the discussion phase, the working group evaluates the
policy proposal and comments are made. Politeness and courtesy
must lead discussions, PDWG Chair should emphasize this each
time it is relevant. <br>
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the PDWG Chair provides a
summary of the discussion highlighting the close and open
issues. <br>
Once the working group agrees on the summary, which can be
edited according to feedbacks, the PDWG Chair decides whether
the policy proposal should move to the next phase (Review
Phase), go to an extended discussion phase or should be
withdrawn. The decision to move forward will be announced on RPD
mailing list. <br>
If significant comments or modifications are suggested during
the Discussion Phase, the policy proposal initiators will review
the proposal and a new version will be published. A new
Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the
proposal. This new Discussion Phase should last at least two
weeks. <br>
If the suggested comments or modifications are not so
significant to require a new Discussion Phase, the PDWG Chair
can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase)
with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary
changes. <br>
Each version of the proposal is publicly archived to
transparently show the history of changes to the proposal and
published on AFRINIC web site. <br>
The new version of the policy proposal should be announced on
AFRINIC RPD mailing list and website before the proposal can be
moved to the Review Phase. <br>
The PDWG Chair shall request the AFRINIC Ltd CEO to conduct and
publish an impact analysis about the proposal before it can be
moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to
provide relevant supporting information to facilitate the
discussions about the proposal and provide some projections
about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This
analysis will contain the following points: <br>
AFRINIC Ltd’s understanding of the proposed policy <br>
Impact on the registry and Internet Number Resources <br>
Impact on AFRINIC Ltd’s operations/services <br>
Legal impact <br>
<br>
6.1.3 The Review Phase <br>
The goal of this phase is to review the full draft policy
proposal compiled at the end of the Discussion Phase. Hence, the
final documentation of the proposal will lead to rough
consensus; all modifications made to that document should be
transparent to the working group. During the Review Phase,
discussion of the draft proposal can continue, also in the light
of the impact analysis, and within the context of the proposal,
further modifications can still be suggested regarding the draft
proposal. The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four
weeks. <br>
At the end of the Review Phase, the PDWG Chair determines
whether the working group has reached rough consensus. In the
case the PDWG Chair decides that consensus has not been reached,
then the PDWG Chair can send the draft proposal back to the
Discussion Phase if the initiators are willing to make an
improvement of their proposal and make the necessary changes
according to the feedback received from the community. <br>
A draft proposal sent back to discussion phase automatically
lost its status of draft proposal. <br>
The PDWG Chair can also decide to have the draft proposal edited
and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal
or otherwise the proposal shall be withdrawn. <br>
<br>
6.1.4 The Concluding Phase <br>
In the case, the Chair determines that the WG has reached
consensus at the end of the Review Phase, the PDWG Chair moves
the draft proposal to a "Last Call for Comments" and the
Concluding Phase starts. The Last Call period lasts at least two
weeks. The Last Call shall be announced on policy discussions
mailing list. <br>
The purpose of this Last Call period is to provide the community
with a final opportunity to comment on the draft proposal. This
is especially intended for those who missed the previous two
phases and want to oppose the proposal or make substantial
remark. The "Last Call for Comments" gives time to the community
after the PDWG Chair declares rough consensus at the end of the
Review Phase so that suggestions for any final changes or
objections to the proposal can be sent to the WG mailing list.
At this stage, objections need to be justified just as in the
other phases for them to be taken into account. <br>
At the end of the Last Call period, the PDWG Chair will assess
the feedback received during this period and decide whether
consensus has been achieved. If there is no feedback from the
community at this stage, this is regarded as consensus. <br>
If rough consensus is achieved, the PDWG Chair will announce the
decision and initiate the process of the draft proposal
ratification by AFRINIC board of directors. <br>
If consensus has not been achieved, the PDWG Chair can decide to
either send back the proposal to the previous phases of
Discussion or Review, otherwise the proposal shall be withdrawn.
<br>
The initiators of a policy proposal (or anyone else) are free to
return the proposal to the RPD mailing list for further
discussion after a withdrawal. <br>
<br>
6.2 Policy Ratification <br>
After a draft proposal has reached rough consensus, AFRINIC
board of Directors have the obligation to check if process have
been followed very well. <br>
In the case of a rejection, the AFRINIC board of directors must
justify and publish the reason on the resources policy
discussion list ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>)
and on the AFRINIC website, and ask the working group to rectify
the issue. <br>
After ratification, AFRINIC board of Directors, announce their
decision to the working group and this activates implementation
of the policy by AFRINIC staff. <br>
<br>
7.0 Appeals <br>
7.1 Appealable Actions <br>
7.1.1 Suspension of posting privileges <br>
Anyone whose privileges of posting to the Resources Policy
Discussion mailing list have been suspended by the WG Chair may
file an appeal against the decision to the AFRINIC board of
directors. The board shall investigate the circumstances of the
justification as prescribed and determine the outcome. <br>
<br>
7.1.2 During the Discussion Phase <br>
During the Discussion Phase, anyone who has a complaint or other
concern about the policy proposal or how it is being handled on
the policy development mailing list should first raise the
matter with the PDWG Chair. If the dispute cannot be resolved
with the PDWG Chair, the appeals Procedure can be invoked. <br>
<br>
7.1.3 During the Review & Concluding Phases <br>
At these stages of the process – i.e. after the PDWG Chair has
declared initial consensus or the proposal is in Last Call –
complaints should not be about the policy proposal itself unless
there are exceptional extenuating circumstances. <br>
Anyone who believes that the proposal has not been handled
correctly or that the PDWG Chair has made an incorrect
determination of consensus should first raise the matter with
the PDWG Chair. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG
Chair, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked. <br>
<br>
7.2 Appeals procedure <br>
An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3)
individuals from the Working Group who have participated in the
discussions to an Appeal committee appointed by the AFRINIC
Board of Directors. The appeal must be submitted within two
weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The Appeal
Committee shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to
the Working Group. The Appeal Committee may direct that the
Chair decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has
not been followed. <br>
<br>
8.0 Varying the Process <br>
8.1 Variance by the PDWG <br>
The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an
emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some
provision of this document is required. The decision to vary the
process is taken by the Working Group Chair. There must be an
explanation about why the variance is needed. The discussion,
review and concluding period shall not be less than four weeks.
If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be
presented at the next Public Policy Meeting. <br>
<br>
8.2 Variance by the AFRINIC board of Directors <br>
As per section 11.4 of the AFRINIC constitution, AFRINIC board
of Directors may adopt policies regarding the management of
Internet number resources where it considers that the same is
necessary and urgent, having regard to the proper and
responsible usage of these resources. <br>
The decision to vary the process is presented to the Working
Group. There must be an explanation about why the variance is
needed. The Board of Directors shall allow the working group to
review the proposal for a period of not less than two weeks. <br>
While the board of Directors is encouraged to take into
consideration the comments and suggestions from this review,
these comments and suggestions are not binding. <br>
The working group at the following public policy meeting will
endorse any such adopted policy as per section 11.5 of the
bylaws, <br>
<br>
4.0 Revision History <br>
<br>
Date Revision <br>
28 April 2017 Version 1 posted to rpd <br>
<br>
<br>
5.0 References <br>
<br>
This proposal is mainly based on the intensive discussions we
had on the current PDP during 2016 and 2017 on the RPD mailing
list. It addresses issues by referring to best practices from
the IETF and the PDPs of other RIRs. <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
RPD mailing list <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/fr-fr/c-malware?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclients&utm_term=oa-2335-v2-c"
target="_blank"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png"
style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" height="29"
width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width: 470px; padding-top: 17px; color: #41424e;
font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Vérification des <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.avast.com/fr-fr/c-malware?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclients&utm_term=oa-2335-v2-c"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">malwares</a>
effectuée </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za">mje@posix.co.za</a> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ftth.posix.co.za">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>