Hi SM, All, See my response inline.
> >Clearly there is an important issue with using the word "comunity" > >in the PDP. I would > >like to recommend that in any future revisions of the PDP inlcuding > >the current attempts > >to re-develop the PDP, the word "community" should be qualified at > >every instance so that > >it is clear what is being refered to. I would recommend that we have a "definitions section" in SM's proposal that defines the various variants of "community". > McTim added "anyone" to the list ( > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2010/000871.html ). > > In the existing PDP, Vincent used "members of the community" in > Section 2.1. According to the terms of reference that would be > "AfriNIC community". Yes, that is correct, the clarification is contained in the TOR. But I guess we can make this more clearer in the main PDP document. > Section 2.2 uses "member of the community" for > proposals. That refers to the global Internet community. Again, we may need to be more explicit in the PDP. > Section 2.3 mentions that this mailing list is "open to > anyone from the community". Again, that refers to the global Internet community. > Section 2.5 uses "before the community > endorses or rejects" for the face to face meeting. That would be > AfriNIC community. That would be any member of the global Internet community present at an AfriNIC face-to-face public policy meeting. We don’t want to develop AfriNIC policy in seclusion. Again, I recommend that we have a "definitions section" in SM's proposal that defines the various variants of "community" and any other relevant definitions. Regards, -Vincent
_______________________________________________ rpd mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
