Hi Borg Knight,
At 06:00 18-01-10, Borg Knight wrote:
I came across this proposal on the Afrinic website
(http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2009-GEN-001.htm) and
here is an excerpt
[snip]
Incentive:
The objective of this proposal is to create a policy development
process in the AfriNIC service region based on three principles:
openness, transparency and fairness.
The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair,
open and objective and are intended to:
(i) provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all
interested parties;
(ii) establish widespread community consensus.
These procedures adopt generally accepted practices and provide the
flexibility to adapt to a variety of circumstances that can occur in a process.
[snip]
My questions are:
1. Isn't there already a policy development process at Afrinic?
Yes, there is already a policy development process.
(http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-GEN-001.htm). And
according to the Afrinic factsheets, it is also based on the same principles.
The proposal starts by outlining the principles. The original
version of the document that was posted did not have the Incentive
section. I encourage you to read the other sections as they are more
interesting.
Could you please point me to a URL for the Afrinic factsheets you are
referring to?
2. In that case shouldn't the proposal be an amendment to correct
any weaknesses in the existing policy?
That is the aim of the proposal. It lists which policy is
affected. I suggest that you ask the PDP Moderator Group whether
that is the correct way to do an amendment.
According to the Incentive sections of the existing policy and the proposal:
AFPUB-2008-GEN-001:
"Now that AfriNIC has been well established, it is being proposed to revise
the policy development process to increase participation from the community
in the process."
AFPUB-2009-GEN-001:
"The objective of this proposal is to create a policy development process in
the AfriNIC service region based on three principles: openness, transparency
and fairness."
It is better to make the amendments by coming up with a comprehensive
document which defines what the process is about and how it should work.
3. Could the author clarify the difference between PDWG and the
exisint PDP-MG? as well as bw PDML and rpd? Frankly these don't make
any sense.... giving a dog a new name makes it better?
Quoting the proposal:
"The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the proposals.
Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person."
And AFPUB-2008-GEN-001:
"A PDP Moderator Group (MG) will be set-up to moderate and coordinate the
policy development process and discussions. It will consist of three(3)
members of the community. One AfriNIC staff will also be providing
support to the MG."
You are part of the Policy Development Working Group. You are not
part of the existing PDP Moderator Group. For a proposal to be
adopted, it requires the consensus of the Policy Development Working
Group. The name is just a name and a way to refer to the group. I
could have called it Dog Group. I doubt the community would approve
of such a name. The name PDML is already used in the existing policy
(AFPUB-2008-GEN-001). There is no change as such between the
existing policy and the proposal.
You asked about weaknesses in one of your questions. The existing
policy does not define how the PDP Moderator Group can be
fired. Let's take a hypothetical case where the members of the PDP
Moderator Group cannot be reached. If we follow the existing policy,
the community would be unable to define new policies in such a
case. The proposal provides a means to recall the Chairs (see
Conflict Resolution Section).
The existing policy does not discussion about conflict
resolution. For example, if you disagree with the decision of the
PDP Moderator Group, you have no recourse. That is discussed in the
first paragraph of the Conflict Resolution Section in the proposal.
Currently, a policy can only be implemented after it has been adopted
at the open policy meeting. As these meetings are held twice yearly,
the minimum time for a proposal to be adopted is six months if the
proposal is submitted after a meeting. This proposal takes into
account that there can be emergencies where it is not sensible to
wait for the next open policy meeting. You have to justify the urgency though.
One minor fix in the proposal is the change from AfriNIC Board of
Trustees to AfriNIC Board of Directors.
The proposal specifies that all aspects of the process and the
procedures that are developed to implement a policy are documented
and publicly available. When things are transparent, you do not have
to deal with arbitrary rules or resort to guesswork to determine what
the requirements are.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
