Hi Jordi et al,
Sorry for jumping in late.
For starters, let me say that I support the amendment of the current
PDP.
Lemmie now respond to Jordis' email before I raise my views:
On May 3, 2007, at 2:57 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I missed yesterday the Policy BOF because the clash with the IPv4
exhaustion
one, so I wanted to raise my inputs here.
Yeah, it was a tough choice to make but it's good to know that all
the BoF's went well after all.
My feeling is that there is a need for a formal setup of a chairing
committee. From what I see in other regions that I believe could
apply here
will be having 3 co-chairs from the region, if possible coming from
different sectors (ISPs, IX, education).
I also agree on this.
I will suggest to change the co-chairs every 3 years or so, may be
for a
maximum of 2 consecutive terms, and the first time do it in such
way that
only one co-chair is replaced each year. At this way, you always
have two
co-chairs aware of what is going on.
This is good especially to ensure continuity.
The co-chairs should be able to follow, together with the staff,
the policy
proposals on the PDP and help the authors understanding the process,
editorial work, etc.
If a co-chair becomes co-author of a proposal, he/she should
abstain in the
consensus "measurement" when that proposal is voted and he must
clearly
state when talking in the list and the meetings that he/she is
talking at
that point as one of the authors, not as a co-chair. In general the
co-chairs should also differentiate clearly all their comments when
they are
done as participants versus co-chairs (those comments should be
typically
restricted to possible PDP issues, legal aspects, etc., but not the
merits
of the proposal itself).
This is good as well but will depend on how many members from the
community contribute towards a specific proposal.
I think it is needed to start each policy session with a very short
and
concise reminder about the process.
I agree. Thereafter, it can act as a reminder to members who would
like to get an overview of the PDP. I think we should include this
"PDP reminder" as part of the "policy proposal template".
I like very much the way this is handled
in ARIN. Thinks like what happened this morning should be avoided.
Nobody
has the right to interrupt the process (and even less when the
actual chair
has already asked to raise the hands in order to seek if there is
consensus
or not):
I don't think this is explicitly restricted anywhere in the current
PDP. However, I think we should now focus on remedying the situation
by making the PDP more precise and explicit.
There is a time for discussion and if anyone raise valid/funded
concerns it is ok, but not vague things or wrong statements about
objecting
because whatever not being correct in those statements but is
misleading the
people in the room. It is a clear distortion of the process and
should not
be allowed.
I also believe that the existing mail exploder is good enough and
no more
mail exploders are needed.
I think the current mailinglist (resource policy development) is
sufficient for now. I also think we should shelve SIG's for now but
keep the idea at the back of our minds.
Last, but not least, if the board, which is the last step in the
PDP, has
the feeling that something is not good in a policy (already
accepted) or the
situation has changed (example today, an IETF alternative usage for
a bit in
a document), the board should have the power to return that policy
to the
mailing list for a new turn around.
I agree. I also think we should explicitly define the purpose of the
"Last Call".
It should be also possible to discuss and check for consensus on
the list
itself, without the need for a face-to-face meeting (for example a
topic
that have no objections in the list).
I have suggested this before and I think it's something we should put
some thought into. The only problem with taking this route will be
the number of people who contribute towards the policy in question.
IMHO, I don't think that 8 or so people should make a decision for
the entire AfriNIC region.
Let's hope that the meeting we held in Abuja will bear fruit and that
more people with join (and contribute) the policy mailing list. Let's
all remember that the PDP is a bottom-up approach and that policies
are meant to be made by the community. My opinion is that we should
leave the online ratification of policies until a time when we shall
have a *reasonable* number of members contributing in the mailing list.
My Views:
In addition to having co-chairs for facilitating and/or managing the
PDP and online ratification of policy proposals:
(a) I also think that we should clearly *explain* policies when
proposing them. I got the impression, and this is my opinion, that
quite a number of members didn't understand the "Central-ULA"
proposal that Jordi had submitted. It would be nice to explain the
proposal and where possible give a history and/or effect(s) of the same.
(b) I also think we should come up with a more explicit way of
measuring consensus at the open public policy meetings. This is
clearly important and is not well addressed in the current PDP.
Should we measure consensus as a percentage, say 75%, of the total
number of members who vote in favour of a certain policy proposal?
Some registries, like APNIC, use a percentage to measure consensus
and I think this would be a nice idea.
Regards,
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
