<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<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
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>
<p><b>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>
</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>
<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>
<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
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>
<blockquote type="cite"><i>which destroys a number of the
qualities of how the PDP currently runs.</i></blockquote>
</p>
<p>Please clarify how the policy destroys the qualities of PDP.
Initiators welcome comments and suggestions for improvement.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72"></pre>
<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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a> | Independent
<br>
(b) Arnaud A. A. AMELINA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a> | TogoRER
<br>
(c) Honest Ornella GANKPA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a> | Independent
<br>
(d) Alain P. AINA | <a 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a> | Independent
<br>
Arnaud A. A. AMELINA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a> | TogoRER
<br>
Honest Ornella GANKPA | <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com">honest1989@gmail.com</a> | Independent
<br>
Alain P. AINA | <a 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 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 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 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 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 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 class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<br>
<a 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;">
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 18px;"><a 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 src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/2016/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange_184x116-v1.png" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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 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>
</table>
</body>
</html>