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

[AfriNIC-rpd] About AFPUB-2010-GEN-001

sm+afrinic at sm+afrinic at
Wed Mar 31 04:40:32 UTC 2010

At 11:26 29-03-10, Adiel A. Akplogan wrote:
>>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 include
>>a report of the discussions during the Public Policy Meeting and the
>>Call. The AfriNIC Board of Directors may not disapprove a draft
>>but if it has concerns about a draft policy, it may refer it back to
>>Policy Development Working Group, together with an explanation, for
>The board should not have a say on a policy (or reject a policy) that
>consensus from the community. The role of the Board is and should
>to be to ensure that the PD process is followed. Board members can
>the substance of a policy in their personal capacity during the open
>discussion period but not at the board level after the consensus is
>on the mailing list, during face to face meeting and the last call
>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
>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.

That's a good point.  It allows issues to be addressed earlier in the process.

>So it is recommended that this Section 5.4 of the policy proposal be
>by the author.

I'll propose some new text to that effect.

>>Section 6
>>Conflict Resolution
>>A 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
>>disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an
>>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
>>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
>>if 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,
>>the person requesting the recall and the Working Group Chairs, using
>>a random
>>selection process. The Recall Committee shall investigate the
>>circumstances of
>>the justification for the recall and determine the outcome.
>The board has no issue with this but suggests that the author be more
>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
>is rejected! We have to limit this exclusively to complain about the

The proposal has "if the Policy Development Process has not been 
followed" in Section 6.  Complaints that are not about the process 
itself can be rejected.

>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 a
>potential risk to end up with the same people for every recall

Yes, that's a problem.

>It also suggested to look into the possibility for AfriNIC to have a
>Appeal Committee appointed by the board to deal with this as well all
>provision for appeal that is being made for in the new AfriNIC RSA.

That sounds fine.

>According to the legal Opinion, this is inline with the regulations
>and Acts under which AfriNIc operates in Mauritius.

Thank you.

>>(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.

Thank you.

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the RPD mailing list