Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: Policy Development Process

Tue Jul 3 07:50:49 UTC 2007

Hi Vincent,

My comments below in-line.


De: Vincent Ngundi <vincent at>
Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
Fecha: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 22:56:42 +0300
Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
Asunto: [AfriNIC-rpd] AfriNIC Policy Proposal: Policy Development Process

Hi Members,

Policies form a critical part of the efficient utilisation of resources, in
this case Internet number resources. The process through which these
policies are formulated should also be proper and sound if we are to
formulate sound and efficient policies.

I hereby submit the above policy proposal for discussion by the AfriNIC
community. The initial policy development process used by AfriNIC was meant
to be a transitional process. Now that AfriNIC has been well established, I
think it's time we revised the policy development process to increase
participation from the community in the process.


Name : Vincent Ngundi
Organisation : Kenya Network Information Center - KeNIC
Policy Affected : Policy Development Process
Date :      3rd July 2007
Proposal : Policy Development Process
Policy Term : Permanent

Incentive: The initial policy development process used by AfriNIC was meant
to be a transitional process. 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.

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

[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.

Note: The two(2) Moderator Group (MG) members will be nominated by the
community during a face-to-face (f2f) open public policy meeting for a
defined period. AfriNIC will nominate one of it's staff members to the
Moderator Group (MG).

[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.

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"

 (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.

[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.

Note: Policies can be proposed by anyone from the community.

3. The proposed policy is then posted on the mailing list rpd at
<%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.

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.

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

[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.

Note: The policy should be ratified by the BoT at the subsequent Board

[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".

[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.

Effect on AfriNIC

This policy will affect the current Policy Development Policy.




KeNIC - The Kenya Network Information Center

rpd mailing list
rpd at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the RPD mailing list