<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>It's good to hear that you are excited, Marcus. Hopefully you
will channel that energy into encouraging rather than distracting
from the current productive conversation. <br>
</p>
<p>When we proposed that authors and interested community members
work collaboratively at the last PPM, it was with the hope that
some middle ground would be found. Refer to emails of February 18
and February 22 from the PDP-BIS authors to see the stand taken by
the authors. We can try to encourage collaboration and cooperation
but we cannot force anyone to shift from their stand. <br>
</p>
<p>In addition, if I had been the one to comment on the factual
inaccuracies in Komi's account of the PPM while it was Jordi being
challenged, I would have appeared biased; The meeting recordings
are there to show the facts. Interestingly, the recent restart of
productive discussion was as a result of Jordi finding and
responding to Komi's email after he assumed there was no further
response from the PDP-BIS authors.<br>
</p>
<p>Just so you are aware, Marcus, I will not engage you further on
any replies that do nothing to further the progress of this policy
discussion. Staying on topic within policy discussions will be a
good practice for us all to imbibe.<br>
</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>Dewole.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/27/2019 10:20 AM, Marcus K. G.
Adomey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DB7PR06MB4842B9B0B0C3E40BC7496C21B91D0@DB7PR06MB4842.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
<div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Hello Dewole,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
It is exciting to see cochair engaged, expressing views and
opinions. You suddenly became vocal, but went quiet when
coauthors responded to you in February and called for your
leadership on the collaborative work with Jordi on update to
PDP.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Good or bad sign?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction:ltr; margin:0; padding:0;
font-family:sans-serif; font-size:11pt; color:black">
Marcus</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b>
Dewole Ajao <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng"><dewole@forum.org.ng></a><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 25, 2019 10:04:30 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Komi Elitcha<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Honest Ornella GANKPA; ALAIN AINA; rpd<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Cooperation re PDP update proposal</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi Komi,<br>
<br>
See mine in between.<br>
<br>
On 5/25/2019 9:33 AM, Komi Elitcha wrote:<br>
> Hi Dewole,<br>
><br>
> - This conversation is the exact situation where 2
working group members with good intention are expressing
different approaches to the same problem. Thus, the need
for a neutral party (moderator) to help them dissipate
their disagreement and build a common ground acceptable to
both; what we call here rough consensus.<br>
Touching on the problem as seen by both working group
members is a good <br>
(re)start :<br>
<br>
The Simple update to PDP proposal submitted by Jordi at <br>
<a
href="https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d2#proposal"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d2#proposal</a>
can be
<br>
summarized as wanting to explicitly state that mailing list
and PPM <br>
contributions be considered in consensus checks, it attempts
to define <br>
"consensus" and "last call". It also introduces/modifies
some timing <br>
related to activities within the PDP.<br>
<br>
The PDP BIS proposal submitted by Komi et al at <br>
<a href="https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2017-gen-002"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.afrinic.net/policy/2017-gen-002</a>
can be summarized as wanting
<br>
to introduce a proposal adoption phase that makes problem
statements <br>
clearer, prevents duplicate proposals tackling the same
problem, <br>
explicitly allows classification of certain proposals as
"out of scope", <br>
and provides a "clear method for moving proposals forward".
It seeks to <br>
define a decision-making process for consensus to close the
door to <br>
"interpretations and inactions". It also seeks to fix the
absence of <br>
provision for board adopting policies under a varied
process. This is in <br>
addition to a document that defines "clear roles and
responsibilities <br>
for the chairs and clear procedures for the working group's
administration".<br>
<br>
Based on the big difference in approaches, can we really say
both <br>
approaches are looking at the same problem(s)? Perhaps this
cooperation <br>
can start by a joint look at the perceived problem(s) and
then moving <br>
from that to a solution?<br>
<br>
><br>
> - Moderate does not mean censor, ban or punish.
Moderate as prescribed by PDP-BIS is a way of helping the
working group methodically make progress and so,
encourage more participation and dihscourage disruptive
behaviours, as they will no longer produce the expected
effects.<br>
Okay.... We will come back to this in due course.<br>
><br>
> - In PDP, there are no products, no sellers or buyers.
Once a problem is identified and accepted as work item by
the Working group, the solution must be community-driven.
That is why, PDP-BIS is moving from this authors against
others mode to a more community approach. The "authors" is
replaced by "initiators". All rights on proposals are
granted to the Working group giving more powers to the
community and the cochairs, etc.<br>
<br>
:-) On the contrary, Komi, the products of the PDWG are
(improved) <br>
Internet number resource management policies. Typically,
someone has to <br>
identify a problem (or a possible improvement) and share it
with the <br>
community with the hopes that the active members of the
community agree <br>
that it is a problem to be solved (or a desirable
improvement). That <br>
process of sharing with the expectation of adoption could be
smoother if <br>
the author/initiator were to treat the people they need to
convince like <br>
they were rich clients whom they needed to open their
purses. No money <br>
changes hands but you get the idea.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Dewole.<br>
<br>
><br>
> HTH<br>
> Komi<br>
><br>
> Thank you!<br>
><br>
>> Le 24 mai 2019 à 05:44, Dewole Ajao
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng"><dewole@forum.org.ng></a> a écrit :<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Komi,<br>
>><br>
>> Beyond requesting clarification where needed, I
have generally stayed out of proposal discussions to avoid
situations where my comments are misconstrued as being for
or against a proposal. That being said, I will make some
comments because it may be helpful in this case for the
community to see things from the viewpoint of a co-chair. I
am also happy to recuse myself from any determination
regarding any/all PDP improvement proposals if that is
perceived to be the best way forward.<br>
>><br>
>> 1. It is quite interesting that you state
categorically that all we do as co-chairs is the bare
minimum listed in the current PDP. Many of the things you
mention as roles and responsibilities in the PDP-BIS
proposal are already being done (even though we do them with
expectations of maturity/cooperation within the group and
without trying to micro-manage the process). If the PDP is
updated to have specific phases, co-chairs must work with
that.<br>
>><br>
>> 2. As you may have observed, my personal opinion is
that censoring the few participants in a discussion does not
serve to encourage participation. Some members are prone to
taunting others while being barely civil and unfortunately
their targets take the bait and allow emotions drive them to
respond with insults/slander/attacks. We also have cases
where members branch out from the policy discussion to
sentimental issues that should have no bearing on policy. As
co-chairs, we observe these distractions from time to time
but we choose not to amplify them. I would rather allow
common sense prevail since a mature mind should be able to
sidestep any distraction and stay on the topic of policy
development. I don't think there is a perfect solution as
this is totally dependent on the maturity of discussants but
perhaps we at AFRINIC could borrow a leaf from
<a
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/aup/"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/aup/</a>
where a standing committee exists to assist with reviewing
the course of action in the event of abuse.<br>
>><br>
>> 3. Co-chairs currently monitor remote chat during
the PPM in addition to the assigned staff member monitoring
remote participation. When the traffic is light, it is easy
for co-chairs to cover both in-room and remote participation
with no problem but there be situations where there is a lot
of chatter in the chat as well as in the room. I believe the
PDP should allow room for the assigned staff to bring any
missed points from remote participation to the attention of
the co-chairs.<br>
>><br>
>> 4. The list of responsibilities you posted below
has done nothing to help me understand what you mean by
"uncontrolled email flow" or "unmoderated flow of mails".
What specific actions would you suggest that we take,
please?<br>
>><br>
>> 5. Despite your attempts to hard-code specific
responsibilities in the PDP-BIS, some of them are still
subject to interpretation and it is quite possible that
having them there does not achieve the desired results. What
we need to do is tell ourselves the truth: people just need
to become more mature. We need to try to see things from
others' point of view and understand that we are not always
the ones that know best what is best for everyone. We should
also try to forget the wrongs we think have been done to us
in the past and try to move forward.<br>
>><br>
>> My advice to authors of any policy proposals is
this: Instead of saying "this is why I am right and you must
support my policy proposal", you could try saying "section
xyz of my proposal attempts to solve this problem by doing
abc, what do you think?". As much as you seek to be
understood, you should also seek to understand others'
positions. People have short attention span and it is
possible they do not fully understand what you are
proposing; your manner of approach will determine if they
take their scarce time to appreciate the issue or not. If on
the other hand, their objections are out of ignorance, it
will become obvious if you engage them in an accommodating
manner.<br>
>><br>
>> In the past twenty or so years, I have sold
products or services in one form or the other and I have
learnt that customers buy when the product/service being
offered is easy to understand. I sell more when I take no
more than two different products to them; when I take a
larger array of products, their brains switch from buying
mode and they usually end up not taking a decision. I think
all policy proposers should think like salesmen trying to
get their customers to make a buying decision. I understand
that not everyone agrees with this approach but I just
thought I should mention it.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Dewole.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
>> From: "abel ELITCHA" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com"><kmw.elitcha@gmail.com></a><br>
>> To: "dewole" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dewole@forum.org.ng"><dewole@forum.org.ng></a><br>
<br>
>> Cc: "Arnaud AMELINA" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com"><amelnaud@gmail.com></a>,
"Honest Ornella GANKPA" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com"><honest1989@gmail.com></a>, "ALAIN
AINA" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Alain.Aina@wacren.net"><Alain.Aina@wacren.net></a>, "rpd"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a>, "jordi palet"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es"><jordi.palet@consulintel.es></a><br>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:22:53 PM<br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Cooperation re PDP update
proposal<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Dewole,<br>
>><br>
>> The current PDP as we read it in CPM at section
3.3[1] says :<br>
>><br>
>> ‘The Policy Development Working Group has two
Chairs to perform its administrative functions.<br>
>><br>
>> Cochairs role and responsibilities are listed as
follow [2]:<br>
>><br>
>> ######<br>
>> • Determining whether there is consensus during
open policy discussions.<br>
>> • Publishing minutes of the proceedings of
public policy meetings.<br>
>> • Initiation and termination of final review of
proposals (Last Call).<br>
>> • Sending a report on the outcomes of policy
discussions at public policy meetings to the Board of
Directors.<br>
>> #####<br>
>><br>
>> THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING SO FAR.<br>
>><br>
>> If PDP-BIS is adopted, cochairs role and
responsibilities will be as follow:[3]<br>
>><br>
>> ####<br>
>><br>
>> 2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting<br>
>><br>
>> 2.1.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting<br>
>><br>
>> • Introduce a policy proposal into the adoption
phase<br>
>> • Announce policy proposals to the policy
discussion mailing list<br>
>> • Discourages any behaviour that jeopardizes open
participation to policy discussions, especially for
newcomers.<br>
>> • Monitors and moderate 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, 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>
>> 2.1.2 After a Public Policy Meeting<br>
>><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 and moderate 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>
>><br>
>> 2.1.3 During a Public Policy Meeting<br>
>><br>
>> • Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the
discussions<br>
>> • Determine whether rough consensus has been
achieved during the Public Policy Meeting<br>
>> • Monitor remote chat-room discussions during the
AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting<br>
>> • Present the policy discussion working group
report to the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting.<br>
>><br>
>> ######<br>
>><br>
>> IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WITH PPD-BIS, CHAIRS WILL HAVE A
MORE ACTIVE ROLE AND THE WHOLE PROCESS WILL DRASTICALLY
IMPROVED. ONLINE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE MONITORED, MODERATED
AND SUMMARISED. ISSUES LIST WILL BE MANAGED AND PROGRESS
TRACKED.<br>
>> BIG CHANGES COMPARED TO THE CURRENT UNCONTROLLED
EMAILS FLOW WHICH CONFUSE PEOPLE, LEAVE THE DISCUSSIONS
AMONG A SMALL GROUP AND HENCE LIMIT PARTICIPATION.<br>
>><br>
>> Hope this answers your questions<br>
>><br>
>> [1] <a
href="https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://afrinic.net/policy/manual#PDP</a><br>
>> [2] <a
href="https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#guide"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#guide</a><br>
>> [3] Chairs roles and responsibilities in a separate
document named ‘pdwg guidelines and procedures’.
Unfortunately the link pointing to this document attached to
the proposal, is broken : see section 3.3 at
<a
href="https://afrinic.net/fr/policy/2017-gen-002-d4#proposal"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://afrinic.net/fr/policy/2017-gen-002-d4#proposal</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> Le 22 mai 2019 à 13:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es"><jordi.palet@consulintel.es></a> a écrit :<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Komi, all,<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> El 22/5/19 10:30, "Komi Elitcha"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com"><kmw.elitcha@gmail.com></a> escribió:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Jordi,<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 20/05/2019 10:09, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ wrote:<br>
>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Sorry, for some reason this email was not
in the right folder, so didn't saw it before. Responding
now, below in-line.<br>
>>> Hmm. ..you missed this important exchange...
very strange, but it<br>
>>> happens....<br>
>>><br>
>>> Well I agree, it happens, I recall when before
the Dakar meeting some proposal authors didn't responded to
previous emails (and they never did). See below regarding
this, because it is expected that authors respond, it MUST
NOT BE expected that community do.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is another motivation to update the
PDP to better organize the<br>
>>> discussions and our work on proposals with
active moderation of the<br>
>>> cochairs...<br>
>>><br>
>>> I don't agree, but may be if there is a way we
need to understand what it means "active moderation". I
think the bigger problem with have in the Internet
communities (even in IETF for example), is that people don't
have time, or just don't pay attention, or don't want to pay
attention. But if you are in that side of the playground,
then you need to realize that you can't complain when rules
(in our case policies), get adopted.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Many got lost and confused easily in the
unmoderated flow of mails.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Big disagreement here. A PDP, by definition is
an open and NOT MODERATED PROCESS AT ALL. It must be
dynamic, and if some people don't participate, is not good,
but that should not preclude the moderation of those that
actually participate.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> El 18/2/19 12:39, "Komi Elitcha"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com"><kmw.elitcha@gmail.com></a> escribió:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Dear co-chairs,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As you know, PDP update discussions
at Afrinic-29 were rich and led<br>
>>>> to the abandonment of the competing
proposal.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> This is incorrect. I voluntarily decided to
withdraw my proposal, under the expectation that you will
consider the community inputs (including those from me), to
improve your proposal.<br>
>>> We heard you and made calls to the community
to comment. I hope your<br>
>>> last search in the archives shows you the
current situation.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Please, realize that if I send an email to a
given policy authors in November, it should not be needed
that I resend the email 6 months after to get responses. If
you volunteer to author a proposal, you commit to advance it
according to the community discussion and respond timely to
emails. This is not necessarily true for community
participants, they can decide NOT to respond to authors
emails.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> PDP-BIS authors will not support a
complete rewrite of the proposal<br>
>>>> under discussion, especially from
author of the withdrawn proposal, who<br>
>>>> changed his mind after supporting the
proposal at Afrinic 28<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> You're saying it all. You don't want to
cooperate with the community,<br>
>>> Since the inception of the proposal and as
you can see in the archives<br>
>>> and through the revision history, community
consensual inputs have<br>
>>> been driving the proposal.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As for the collaboration with you, we have
called for cochairs<br>
>>> mediation to ease things.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On the other hand, "collaboration " does not
mean one party’s view<br>
>>> automatically overweigh the other party’s
views.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Fully agree, but finding consensus means
conceding to the community when it is clear that authors are
wrong in something. Otherwise, consensus can't be declared.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> which is the expected behavior according to
the PDP, to improve the proposal. I was generous withdrawing
my proposal just to avoid and endless discussion, but if you
have this position, I should resubmit my proposal and the
community can decide which one is better.<br>
>>> You are free to do what you want and we
will see how things evolve. It<br>
>>> is interesting that this working group is
incapable of working out a<br>
>>> consensual PDP when we are talking about
lack of participation<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just want to make sure that you think if your
complex process is simplifying the increase of community
participation. I think is not the case, others may disagree,
but at least, we have now discussed concrete pieces that may
be reworded to get them right.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> The current version of PDP-BIS proposal
is the fruit of community inputs<br>
>>>> and raise of multiple concerns. We
welcome new areas of *essential*<br>
>>>> improvement if we have not dealt with
yet.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> That's wrong. The PDP is about
improvements not just "essential" ones.<br>
>>> Was it not you who said " such work, cannot
be perfect from 1st version"?<br>
>>> I am sure if we focus on the essential ones,
we will agree to live with<br>
>>> the rest.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Of course, but both things are compatible. I
usually don't expect that a 1st version of a policy proposal
is right, but if you don't keep improving it along new
version, it will not happen.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Please, lead this process to
conclusion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thank you.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On behalf of PDP-BIS Authors<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> **********************************************<br>
>>> IPv4 is over<br>
>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
>>> The IPv6 Company<br>
>>><br>
>>> This electronic message contains information
which may be privileged or confidential. The information is
intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s)
named above and further non-explicilty authorized
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this information, even if partially, including attached
files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a
criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the contents of this information, even if partially,
including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be
considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and
delete it.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</span></font>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>