Dear all, Let me clarify few points and try to re-focus the discussion about this policy proposal:
1) Clearly there is always room for improvement in any policy development process and at AfriNIC "secretariat" we appreciate input from the community in order to improve existing Internet Number Resource Management Policies (INRMP) or create new one when and where needed. 2) From the discussions and the past 5 years history of Policy development process in AfriNIC region, I think it is fair to say that this proposal should not be "to create a PDP in AfriNIC Region" but rather "to review/update the current PDP" or if going to the far end extrem "to Propose a NEW PDP for AfriNIC region". I think this is clearly covered in the new version posted on March 23rd 2010. So I think we need to move with that latest statement of the incentives. 3) The role of the PDP-MG as a group and suggested by the current PDP is not to discuss nor to alter or make any jugement on policy proposals. Their role is to MODERATE the discussions on the public mailing list, during public face to face meetings and to present policy discussion report to the community and the Bord for ratification (after consensus is reached). So the PDP-MG is not a closed group that discusses policies. They do have a mailing where they discuss matter related to their work (draft report, action to take etc .... The AfriNIC-RPD (Resource Policy Discussion) list is the only electronic and open channel for policy discussions which in its current setup allows anyone to join and contribute to a discussions. The public policy meetings are the twice a year face to face meetings where literally _anyone_ can discuss a policy (have they been on the mailing list before or not - a reason why providing a summary of the online discussion is important). Based on experience learnt from the implementation of the curent PDP it seems to me that a precise and clear definition of the role and expectation of the community from the PDP-MG is needed. That clearly is one area of improvement where we should focus the debate. As a brief history, the current discussion forum was called Policy Working Group in the first PDP (2004). This has changed because of misconception of people about the term "Working Group" as a closed group to "work" on policies. We may want to take that into consideration while discussing this new PDP proposal. 4) On January 22nd there was some questions addressed to the Board related to this proposal. Here are the responses inline along with some legal opinions as requested:
Given that the proposal has some requirements in Section 4, Section 5.4,Section 6 and Section 7 which refer to the AfriNIC Board of Directors, I would like to request your approval for these specific sections.
Section 4: --- "If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the AfriNIC Board of Directors may, at its discretion, immediately select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term." ----
Legal Opinion:
However I do find that involving the Board of Directors in the
selection of a replacement for a chairperson who has not been
able to serve his/her full term to be a usurpation of the powers
of the Community (or Working Group) that has selected the Chair
in the first place.
Another mode of appointment has to be found e.g the designation
of a chairperson by the Public Policy Meeting for the specific
purpose of replacing the chairperson when the latter is unavailable
for whatever reason. The Co-chair may be requested to take over the
role of the Chair as Interim measure.
Section 5.4 --- "5.4 Approval The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the AfriNIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall includea report of the discussions during the Public Policy Meeting and the Last Call. The AfriNIC Board of Directors may not disapprove a draft policy, but if it has concerns about a draft policy, it may refer it back to the Policy Development Working Group, together with an explanation, for furtherwork." --
The board should not have a say on a policy (or reject a policy) that has consensus from the community. The role of the Board is and should continue to be to ensure that the PD process is followed. Board members can discuss
the substance of a policy in their personal capacity during the opendiscussion period but not at the board level after the consensus is reached on the mailing list, during face to face meeting and the last call period. If collectively the board has a structural concern about a policy, or see a policy as a risk for the organisation it raise it as a formal position paper
or as part the policy impact Analysis provide by the staff. This should however is recommended to be raised during the debate and not after.So it is recommended that this Section 5.4 of the policy proposal be reviewed
by the author.
Section 6 -- Conflict ResolutionA person who disagrees with the actions taken by Chair(s)shall discuss the matter with the Working Group Chair(s) or with the Working Group. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an appeal with the AfriNIC Board of Directors. The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The AfriNIC Board of Directors shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the Working Group. The AfriNIC Board of Directors may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulledif the Policy Development Process has not been followed.Anyone who has attended at least two of the last ten AfriNIC meetings may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon written request with justification to the AfriNIC Board of Directors. The Board shall appoint a Recall Committee comprising five persons from the Working Group, excluding the person requesting the recall and the Working Group Chairs, using a random selection process. The Recall Committee shall investigate the circumstances ofthe justification for the recall and determine the outcome. ----
The board has no issue with this but suggests that the author be more precise about what the complain could reasonably be. We need to avoid people to find any reason to complain for when their proposal or proposal they are supporting is rejected! We have to limit this exclusively to complain about the process
itself.The recall committee seems a good thing for fairness but the Board feel that
with the limited active participants to the afrinic-rpd list there is apotential risk to end up with the same people for every recall committee.
It also suggested to look into the possibility for AfriNIC to have a permanent Appeal Committee appointed by the board to deal with this as well all the
provision for appeal that is being made for in the new AfriNIC RSA.
Section 7 --- Varying the ProcessThe process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance may be requested by the AfriNIC Board of Directors and is for use when a one-time waving of some provision of this document is required. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If the AfriNIC Board of Directors adopts the policy, it must be presented at the next PublicPolicy Meeting for reconsideration. ---
The board see no issue with this section.
I would be grateful if you could also help me with the following:
(i) Ask for legal advice as to whether this proposal is compliant
with the laws and regulations which AfriNIC Ltd is subject to.
According to the legal Opinion, this is inline with the regulations and Acts under which AfriNIc operates in Mauritius.
(ii) Provide an analysis of the financial impact if this proposal
is adopted as a policy by AfriNIC.
a) The Chair and co-Chair role being voluntary roles, we see no direct financial impact assuming that electronic means will their main working tool. b) The Board however feel that with the implementation of this policy there may be a need for further resources and attention to be dedicated to the policy development process by the AfriNIC staff.
(iii) Assess whether it is administratively and technically
feasible for AfriNIC to implement this proposal.
Appart from point b) above, there is no further comment from the board. Kind Regards. - a.
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
