Hi Douglas,
At 12:52 09-12-2009, Douglas Onyango wrote:
Then it should be spelt out explicitly in the policy.
That sentence is for exceptional cases.
As i understand it, the chair is not even in charge of making the
meeting agenda, so asking him to post it for me is an overkill, what
we should require rather is that he publish the list of Policies to
be discussed, because this is within his purview....Meeting agenda
cuts across the board and comes off as a guidline, Policy's up for
discussion on the other hand, are only limited to the PDP stuff
which is reasonable to expect from the chair....don't know if i am
getting my point across.
The Working Group Chair publishes the agenda. An agenda obviously
includes the list of policies to be discussed. Now, if you are going
to hold a Public Policy Meeting without having a list of policies on
the agenda, I can only wonder why one would call it a Public Policy Meeting.
house.....We shall have a discussion and then at the end, we have a
situation where there
lingers some objections and the policy should be sent back to be
list for further discussion, but i as aurthor stand up and challenge
the chair with this clause...."The draft policy may be sent back to
the Policy Development Process mailing list for discussion if there
are objections to the proposal" in my understanding, this means
50/50 on sending it back and not doing so (sending it up the PDP
ladder.)...........eliminate this possibility, but say shall, so
that in the event that there is any plausible object on a policy, it
cannot by any means go up the PDP ladder...
The last sentence in Section 5.2 could have been written as:
The draft policy may be sent back to the Policy Development Process
mailing list for discussion if there is substantial objection to the
proposal.
The main point in that section is:
"The Chair(s) determines whether rough consensus has been achieved."
That's not a 50/50 if the process is followed. The process is much
more than the steps described. The keyword here is "rough
consensus". That requires consensus building.
There are times when sending the proposal back to the group is not
worthwhile unless you want to keep it being (not) discussed or for
this group to have something listed for discussion even if there
won't be any progress.
If this proposal is adopted, you won't see the results overnight as
there are also some cultural issues to overcome.
AFPUB-2008-ASN-001 is dated 27 May 2009 and the Status is
"Ratified". AFPUB-2009-ASN-001 is dated 27 May 2009 and the Status
is "Draft". The process may need a sanity check.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
