Hi Jordi,
See my comments inline.
[...]
Proposed Policy
The proposed policy development process (PDP) is described below:
1. A PDP Moderator Group (MG) will be set-up to moderate and
coordinate the
policy development process and discussions. It will consist of two
members
of the community. One AfriNIC staff will also be providing support
to the
MG.
[Jordi] If you want to make it really redundant, I will suggest to
make it 3
members in 3 years terms, being renewed at a different timing. It
will mean
that the first 2 seats, the first term will last only 1 and 2 years,
respectively. This ensures that even if 2 folks fail, you still
have one
(plus the staff member). Also it helps to distribute the load of
different
proposals among the MG. Also you need to indicate something that if
one of
the MG members has a policy proposal, he needs to be excluded of
chairing
the meeting/emails discussions were that proposal is being
discussed and he
can't participate in the consensus achievement decision.
I agree partly.
(a) I had come up with the following but wanted to see the comments
from the members first.
We have 2 members for a 3-year term. The first for 2 years and the
second for 3 years. The AfriNIC staff member will complement the two.
(b) About excluding a member of the MG from chairing if they propose
a policy, I think that would be a good idea though there would still
be a loophole. What if the MG member asks someone else to propose the
policy on their behalf? I think this will be an issue of ethics.
[Jordi] No need to nominate/elect them in a f2f meeting, in fact I
will say
this should be avoided, because that means that the first meeting the
elected candidates will not have time to prepare the meeting and
work with
the authors of the proposals, which is very important. The process of
electing them should be described also, with a concrete timeline (for
example 30 days for nomination, at least 120 days before the following
meeting, ten 30 days for election). At this way you give 60 days
for the
elected folks to work with the authors.
I still think the community (or the board) should propose names and a
decision reached at via consensus. If need be, then we can make
amendments to process. I don't think there's need for such an
elaborate process right now.
2. Policies can be proposed in two ways:
(a) Directly by the author
[Jordi] I guess you mean directly to the list, because they are always
"directly by the author/s"
Yes, thank you.
"Directly to the list by the author"
(b) Through the Moderator Group (MG) which would assist a member
of the
community in drafting the text for the proposed policy.
[Jordi] May be is good to ensure that they are always proposed thru
the MG,
as in other regions (3 out of 5, becoming 4 out of 5 in a similar
proposal
in LACNIC), in order to ensure correction and applicability of the
policy. I
will say that the MG can't reject a policy proposal, just need to
make sure
that it is correct in grammar, understandability, etc. You need to
say also
how much time (I will say maximum a week) the MG has to review a
proposal.
The deadline for submitting a proposal (30 days before the meeting)
counts
from when the proposal is submitted to the MG.
I think we should give members the liberty to choose how they want to
propose their policies. It will also reduce the amount of work for
the MG. I don't think all members require the help of the MG to draft
a policy.
[Jordi] the MG could reject a policy proposal ONLY in the case it
doesn't
conform to the AfriNIC PDP. This should be the only and clear
exception.
IMHO, a policy proposal should be rejected during the PDP not before
it has been submitted to the list. Otherwise, it would have been
rejected outside the PDP.
Note: Policies can be proposed by anyone from the community.
3. The proposed policy is then posted on the mailing list
[email protected]
<%22mailto:rpd@> or any other appropriate mailing list. The
mailing list is
open to anyone from the community at all times, and anyone can join
the list
for discussion
4. The policy is discussed on the mailing list and amended accordingly
following the discussions.
5. After at least 30 days of discussion and comments on the mailing
list,
the policy is brought to the public open policy (face-to-face)
meeting for a
final round of discussions before the community endorses or rejects
the
policy through consensus.
Note: Consensus is defined as general agreement of the group and is
not
measured by a majority. It will be the onus of the MG chair to
determine
whether there is consensus or not.
[Jordi] I will say that you need to measure "no major objection".
The MG
co-chairs (not the chair) need to determine the consensus in an
objective
way, and there should be an appeal process in case it is evident
that the
consensus measurement across different policies is not fair.
I think we should leave this to the co-chairs. We can at least ensure
that both co-chairs agree on whether consensus has been reached or
not. IMHO, consensus means "general agreement" or "no major objection".
6. If there is consensus at the open policy meeting, go to step 7
below. If
there is not consensus, step 4 will be repeated until consensus is
reached
or the policy proposal is abandoned (or withdrawn)
[Jordi] There should be a process to reach consensus without the
need of a
f2f meeting. For example, if there is no objection at all in the
mailing
list. This facilitates minor issues to avoid waiting for a meeting.
I don't think the mailing list we have has matured enough to
represent the entire AfriNIC community. However, let's see what other
members say.
7. A last call for comments on the policy will be announced on the
policy
mailing list. A period of 15 days will be given for the community
to suggest
any final changes and amendments. If there is consensus during the
Last-Call, go to step 7 below. If there is not consensus, step 4
will be
repeated until consensus is reached or the policy proposal is
abandoned (or
withdrawn)
[Jordi] The last call should be started the day after the consensus is
achieved either in the mailing list (for non-objections, or in the f2f
meeting). I guess you mean here "go to step 8 below".
[Jordi] It is not clear to me what it means "final changes and
amendments" I
will say that only editorial issues should be accepted in the last
call,
otherwise, go to step 4.
8. If there is consensus after the 15 days, the Moderator Group
will send a
report to the AfriNIC Board of Trustees (BoT) which should contain the
following as minimum information
- The date of the proposal
- Short summary of the online discussions
- Short summary of the face to face (f2f) discussions
- Short summary of the Last-Call period
- A recommendation of the RPD Moderator Group (MG) to the Board.
[Jordi] I guess you mean PDP.
yes, thanks.
Note: The policy should be ratified by the BoT at the subsequent Board
Meeting.
[Jordi] I will say "non-later than 30 days after the last call ends
and
implemented in a maximum of 60 days after the BoT ratification".
I agree.
[Jordi] There should be a clear definition of what it means
discussing a
policy. As the policies are already review by the MG before going
into the
mailing list, it is assumed that they are CONFORMING with the PDP.
Consequently, any discrepancy about a policy not being subjected to
the PDP,
can't be raised publicly, instead in case of doubt, it should be
brought
privately to the MG for their consideration. This avoids the
manipulation of
the process. For example, somebody can say "this is against the
IETF" (which
never is the case, as the PDP is NOT subjected to IETF and the
community can
jump over IETF decisions if deemed necessary) and many people could
decide
because that comment against the policy. Moreover, if somebody made
publicly
such statement ("you can't do that because doesn't follow the PDP")
that
participant should be excluded of the mailing list and
participation in the
meetings for 180 days. If he persist in his attitude, should be
excluded
again for twice that time, and so on.
I think the PDP is open and as such we should ensure that all
comments by members are made in an open, public platform (like the
mailing list of the open public policy meeting). IMHO, I don't think
members should be punished for airing their views.
-v
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
